Hi Bo --
On Tuesday, 2/9, you wrote: > Ham >> Although I don't believe Quality is Reality, I can accept this logic, >> provided that what Mark means by "expression" is "experience". > > To pick nits I would have liked Mark to say: "The DQ/SQ > arrangement is fixed, while its DQ isn't". That means that DQ > cannot transcend the MOQ. > >> If something "expresses" itself it is revealing or manifesting its >> existence to an observer. What is its appearance to an observer >> but "experience"? And, inasmuch as human experience is limited >> to time/space perception, it seems plausible that a constant is >> experienced incrementally as an evolutionary phenomenon. > > I feel that you Ham - however subtle, academic and learned this > sounds - speak from SOM's premises: A subjective observer who > experiences an objective reality ... maybe an evolutionary reality, > maybe not. MOQ's point is that that it's the 4th. level that created these > premises. The proof of this is (your favorite ;-) that humankind when > the 3rd. level was "leading edge" didn't have any S/O arrangement. I figured you would regard manifestation as an SOM phenomenon. That's why I qualified "Reality" in two ways: [Ham, previously]:: >> That all depends on what we mean by Reality. >> If Reality is the physical universe and its components >> (again, "as experienced") it is most certainly an evolutionary >> system. >> On the other hand, if we're talking about Ultimate Reality (the >> Primary Source of all appearances), then there is no logical >> justification for imputing a condition like "evolutionary" to it. [Bo]: > Here you go again. People of old (social level) knew no S/O hence > their Realities did not split along those lines, while you - a 4th. level > dweller - notoriously speak about a physical universe as contrasted to > (maybe) some "evolutionary" system. Of course I disagree with that analysis. "People of old" experienced objective reality as subjects just as do "people of the present". They didn't need a metaphysics of S/O to understand that the physical world is an object of their experience. I don't know what a "4th level dweller" is meant to signify -- intellectual (?) -- but, for most of us anyway, the physical universe IS an "evolutionary system". > Between you and me Ham, I don't see much meaning in ultimate > anything which is then divided. People of old (social level) had the > Gods/Mortals division in so many forms from mythologies to the > Semitic type religions. Then the (intellectual level's) Subject/Object > division and finally MOQ's Dynamic/Static division with all other view > as its static levels. The problem with Pirsig's philosophy is the premise that reality is assumed to be a divided system from the beginning. There is no creator, no design, no purpose. There is only Quality. Apart from the fact that Quality (Value) is a human measurement, nothing comes from nothingness, let alone a divided system. There must be a primary cause or source for anything to be. This is not a concept of mythology or religion, it's the logic of reason. [Mark]: >> "Even an ever-changing perception can be absolute in its change." > [Ham]: >> This assertion is somewhat problematic. A change can be a constant >> (I think physicists refer to it as 'delta') if said change is >> non-variable, >> such as a steady increase at a fixed rate over time. >> However, there is no empirical support for "constancy" in the >> evolutionary process that I'm aware of. Also, evolution is only >> one aspect of Reality. [Bo]: > I don't feel this as problematic for the MOQ. Its dynamism proceeds > in the said static latchings. I can't decipher this lexicon. Would you be so kind as to translate this for a layman? [Ham]: >> One can't simply isolate "change" and equate it to reality. It >> overlooks the myriad functions and principles of the universe -- >> physical, chemical, biological, electro-magnetic, conscious, etc. [Bo]: > Wonder if not this is exactly what you say? Could you also explain the meaning of this scrambled comment? [Ham]: >> In my metaphysical vernacular, Absolute is One all-encompassing >> Reality from which difference, multiplicity, and process are derived >> appearances. [Bo]: > Your Essentialism and the MOQ would have been identical if you had > let the Absolute spawn something similar to the static level system. Or > is it this you hints to? Essence (not Quality) is the uncreated source that "spawns" all appearances. (Not "identical" but not exactly contradictory, either.) Thanks, Bodvar. Best regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
