Personally i think , Ham, that "causation by preference" is David Bohm's work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm.
Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft but science. It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of causuation by preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong.But i think Pirsig is correct , and Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this projection you made, is a Hammification. But i have to admit , The best lie's are covered with some truth, and the best liars are the ones selling the truth. observation creates reality(as we observe it), but the observer is not reality(as the observer is part of reality). 2010/9/25 Ham Priday <[email protected]> > 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. > > 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." > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > [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. > > Essentially speaking, > 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 > -- parser 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
