Hello Ham, On Behalf Of Ham Priday > Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:25 AM > > Greetings Mary -- > > > [Marsha, previously]: > > I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to discover > the > > falseness of static patterns(experience): not this, not that. There > > is no permanence to static patterns(experience) so in what sense > could > > they ever be true. Could it be that patterns that last longer are > > somehow more true? But that would mean time is the measure of truth, > > and time is itself a static pattern of value. > > [Mary Replies]: > > Yes. We would do well to contemplate the idea that time itself > > is a static pattern of value. > > > > Through SOM we arrived at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. > > This should tell us that there was a "time" when time was > meaningless. > > All the static patterns built up on top of this idea of time are > false. > > The foundation upon which these patterns are built is clay. > > Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us only that beyond the > sensible > range of finitude (i.e., the quanta level) the more precisely the > position > of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its > momentum is. > This principle demonstrates a limitation of experience, rather than > qualifying the "time stream" as such. Actually, Heisenberg himself > discussed the possibility that behind our observational data might be a > hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for > position > and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations. He dismissed > this > conception as meaningless speculation because, as he said, "the aim of > physics is only to describe observable data." > [Mary Replies] I am no physicist, but I've always heard it meant that you can predict the position of a particle or its speed at a point in time but you cannot predict both - and the more accurate you get with one the less accurate you are with the other. I remember thinking when I first heard about it as a kid that it was an astounding admission by physics. Then years later when I read Pirsig, it seemed to substantiate - even to the point of being irrefutable by SOL - that the MoQ was right. Everything is "not" just subjects and objects. Very exciting stuff to me. Imagine! A laboratory physics experiment conducted under the highest standards of SOM that disproves SOM. Wow.
> Classical Philosophy has given us the maxim that nothing can come from > nothing. If you believe this, then the space/time world of appearances > ultimately alludes to a fundamental or True Reality. Otherwise, you > fall > into the camp which rejects any reality as "true". A system of > interrelating things or "patterns" that depend on each other for their > existence without a primary source describes the paradox of infinite > regression -- a logical fallacy. > [Mary Replies] I take it you perceive DQ as 'nothing'? I have no idea what DQ is, and cannot ever hope to know, but I think it is greater than zero. > I'm not sure about you, Mary, but I fear that Marsha has succumbed to > this > nihilistic view. She will try to deny it on the ground that she > believes in > 'Quality'. But Quality (Value) can only be realized experientially, so > it > is no less a "pattern" than is the experiencing subject. And, although > Pirsig could have posited his 'DQ' as the Primary Source, thus > providing his > quality thesis with a metaphysical foundation, he chose not to. > > I am firmly convinced that an "Absolute Essence" is the primary, > underlying > source of all appearances. The Essentialist ontology follows from this > conviction, and it explains "existence" as the affect of a negated > sensibility experiencing reality (otherness) as Being divided by > nothingness. The mode of subjective awareness is dimensional in time > and > space; and while objective experience is relative and provisional, the > Value > from which it is derived is absolute and unconditional. In a > metaphysical > sense, Value, Sensibility, and Truth are One in Essence. Ultimately, > difference and contrariety are transcended by eliminating the > nothingness > that separates them. > [Mary Replies] I think there is no such thing as 'nothingness' and no such thing as 'absoluteness'. > I realize this is a lot to digest in a posted message. But it has long > been > my view that had Mr. Pirsig gone that extra step by making Quality a > relational aspect of Reality, rather than reality itself, he would have > avoided most of the confusion surrounding the MoQ. > [Mary Replies] I see your point, Ham, but it doesn't hang together for me. Quality is Value and Value is DQ. It is undefined, pre-experiential reality, so it exists, but is not absolute. I am not convinced of any absolutes. If DQ were absolute I'd have to worship it, wouldn't I? I'd rather just experience it. Thanks, Mary 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/md/archives.html
