Hi Mary --
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.
Yes, your analysis is correct, as I understand it; and it means there is a limit to experiential knowledge as scientists extend their observations below the macro-phenomenal range. I think it also suggests that events are influenced by the observer's experience--that the object of experience is in part, at least, a construct of the subject. I'm glad you said "everything is not JUST subjects and objects," because existence is an empirical reality that involves
both proprietary awareness and objective "otherness".
I think there is no such thing as 'nothingness' and no such thing as 'absoluteness'.
That view may hold for the relational world of beingness in which every "thing" is different from every other and we are not aware of otherness. In a metaphysical context, however, there is no logical justification for either difference or "otherness", as the Eastern philosophers have taught.
Nicholas of Cusa, a 15th century neo-platonist and theologian, developed a theory based on the principle of "not-other". He reasoned that the world is not God but is not anything "other than" God. Cusa's first principle serves as a basis for Pantheism, but it also supports an absolute ground for metaphysical reality, namely, the Primary Source or "Absolute Essence" by whose negation all difference and contrariety come to be. It is this concept on which my essential ontology is based.
Although I am not a "theist", I do believe in an Absolute Source. Indeed, an "uncreated source" is the only plausible solution to the infinite regression paradox alluded to when the question "Who created the Creator?" is raised. I also believe that, from an existential perspective, creation is "negational". By this, I mean that Essence creates Difference by negating nothingness--the absolute antonym. This actualizes the primary Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy from which S/O existence (and all opposition) is derived.
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.
You see, that's the problem, Mary. The MoQ never transcends the experiential world. The Pirsigian hierarchy with its static patterns and moral evolution is all about Existence, not ultimate Reality. That's why I complain that it's not a true metaphysics. And why would you "have to worship" the absolute? The philosophy of Essence is not a religion, and what you experience as Value is infinitely more meaningful than the worship of a deity, especially when you realize that essentially 'you are what you value'.
Happy Mother's Day, 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/md/archives.html
