Hi Ham, Marsha, All: I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham. I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of Friskies Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not among those things, and . everyone knows this.
Regards, Platt On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:32 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greetings Ham, > > On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:02 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > > Greetings Platt, Marsha, John and All -- > > > > On Sept 23 at 4:08 PM Platt wrote: > > > >> SOM axiom: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it > so." > >> > >> MOQ axiom: Everything is good or bad before thinking at all. > >> > >> We can see what the MOQ is up against -- Pirsig vs. Shakespeare, > >> a far out idea vs.conventional wisdom. > >> > >> Do the levels get in the way of Pirsig's Copernican revolution? > >> > >> Does he cater too much to SOM thinking? > > > > First of all, difference is the nature of existential reality; so there > is no "special difference" that applies to subject-object (SOM) experience. > As for Dynamic Quality being divided into four distinct levels, that is > Pirsig's theory of "causation by preference", and it limits the MoQ to the > evolutionary process of scientific objectivism. > > Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. It is static patterns > that are categorized into four evolutionary levels. > > > > No offense to RMP, but of course I side with Shakespeare on the question > of values. What is "good" or "bad" is man's judgment > (experiencing/thinking/feeling) based on his value orientation. More > recently, astrophysicist John Wheeler noted: "...what we say about the > universe as a whole depends on the means we use to observe it. In the act > of observing we bring into being something of what we see. Laws of physics > relate to man, the observer, more closely than anyone has thought before. > The universe is not 'out there', somewhere, independent of us. Simply put: > without an observer, there are no laws of physics." > > Andre quoted Ant''s PhD thesis where there may be two views of Quality. > The first, from an ultimate point-of-view is good by existence, the second > is a conventionally applied good or bad judgement dependent of relative > experience. > > > > I think he understates the case. Not only are there no laws of physics, > there is no physical world without an observer. A few days ago, Marsha > quoted a developer of quantum physics as saying: "Observations not only > _disturb_ what is to be measured, they _produce_ it." If, as Pirsig wrote > [in SODV], "the observation creates the reality," and if the sense of > Quality is primary to objective experience, then two conclusions can be > drawn: > > 1) An observer (subject) is necessary for objects to exist, and > > 2) Quality (Value) is the essence of empirical reality. > > The "the observation creates the reality" statement is what I interpret the > Lila character to be saying in the Chapter Fourteen soliloquy. And in the > MoQ aren't these two points-of-view considered the (1) static view and the > (2) Dynamic view. The insistence on an 'independent individual' is result > of the static view. > > > > > > Yes, Platt, this is "SOM thinking". But we MUST think in SOM terms when > dealing with the differentiated world of objects and events. More > importantly, from a metaphysical standpoint, we need to dispense with > difference when postulating Ultimate Reality. The MoQ tries to straddle > both dimensions, using the same terminology to describe "static" and > "dynamic" phenomena, thus failing to break through finitude to an absolute > source. And therein lies much of the confusion regarding patterns, > subjectivity, and intellect. > > > > The pattern I've noted in recent posts is an attempt to deny both > objectivity and subjectivity and describe the world as if it could be > understood without observation. That's like trying to explain time in a > world where nothing changes. It makes no sense to deny the obvious; this > only complicates the issue and its exposition. > > To know the world in the static (conventional) sense does require the s/o > split. On that rests my understanding of the Fourth Level being SOM, but > there is unpatterned experience to expose that as illusion, an understanding > that is beyond static knowledge. > > > > In a different thread, John pointed out another important concept that > has been slighted in the MoQ: Freedom. If goodness is fixed to Quality in > the universe, we have no alternative but to experience goodness. But we > experience the bad along with the good. That's because Quality is only a > relative measure of goodness--which allows for free choice. > > To be detached from the total dependence on static knowledge is freedom. > > > > [John to Andre on 9/23]: > >> A response to Quality can be good or bad, right? You can harmonize, > >> or be out of tune. There is choice. > >> > >> Good can exist with freedom, because choice is as fundamental as value. > >> If there is no choice, there is no good. > > > > Indeed, as I have argued previously, it is our CHOICE of value, not the > patterns we construct from it, that is fundamental to human existence. > > And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness? > > > > Essentially speaking, > > Ham > > > Marsha > > > p.s. I've read 'Reason and Existence' by Karl Jasper. I was off to a good > start and very much enjoyed the first lecture where I thought more than once > 'This can be said of Quality too.', but I got lost in the rest of the > lectures. I have still to read 'Introduction to Existentialism.' Perhaps > I should have read that book first. - Right now, I am hot on the trail of > "quantum reality." Hahaha! > > > > > ___ > > > 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 > 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
