Hello Ham,
On Jun 25, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Ham Priday wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 25, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Marsha V. wrote:
>
>> Hi Ham,
>>
>> Does this work?
>>
>> Subject-object metaphysics reflects the view that reality is made
>> of inherently existing self and objects, and an individuals thoughts,
>> being ephemeral (ever-changing, relational, unbounded, impermanent),
>> are not real. This view, though, is a learned set of conceptual
>> attributes overlaid onto experience. The MoQ is not opposed to
>> experience, but the SOM definition.
>
> Well, Marsha, I'm opposed to "the SOM definition" too -- not because an
> individual's thoughts are emphemeral or impermanent, but because our concept
> of physical reality is acquired from common experience, not a metaphysics.
> What makes a metaphysics is a theory of ontology and epistemology that
> relates experiential 'being-aware' to the transcendent ("supra-natural")
> reality. To insist that we can turn this universal worldview into a
> "metaphysics" by arbitrarily dividing it into categories of knowedge is sheer
> sophistry without logic or substance.
I'm using a very simple definition of metaphysics, but it is still a definition.
met·a·phys·ics (mět'ə-fĭz'ĭks)
n. • (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that
examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind
and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/metaphysics
> Now I'm not sure whether "inherently existing" is intended to mean
> "independently arising," "self-sufficient", or "having the power to be," but
> I agree that none of these potentialities apply to selfness or its perceived
> objects. This, of course, means that all of existence is dependent on a
> creative source that is NOT INHERENT in nature.
Inherent would be independent or thing-in-itself. Or the dependency can be on
multiple causes and conditions.
> Right away this contradicts others here who argue that probability, genetics,
> spontaneous evolution, or some 'singular state' of energy is the cause of
> existential reality.
Yes, I know, but evolution is an intellectual static pattern of value like
time, justice, truth, etc., etc., etc.
> Except for Pirsig, of course, who suggests that Quality is not only
> self-subsistent but the creator of levels and patterns that represent all
> experience, including self-awareness, sensibility, intellect and thoughts,
> yet stops short of positing it as Creator or Primary Source.
Yes, those levels are a pattern of like patterns: inorganic, biological, social
and intellectual.
> Had he developed his thesis based on a primary source, with a plausible
> epistemology to explain its differentiation, the MoQ might have ended up as a
> genuine metaphysics instead of a euphemistic paradigm of existence.
I believe the MoQ to be epistemologically (sq) relativistic, and ontologically
(DQ) indeterminate.
> As it is, we are left with some nice prose about moral and intellectual
> virtues to which we (if we're lucky or smart enough) may attach our patterned
> selves and rise above the mundane universe.
>
> At least that's the way I size it up. (You may of course regard this as just
> another of Ham's op-ed pieces thrown from left field.)
>
> Thanks for your clarification, though, Marsha.
Thank you for the opportunity to take a shot at a definition.
Marsha
___
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
