Thank you Platt :-)
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Platt Holden wrote: > 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
