Hi Andre, I think from a Mahayana Buddhist point-of-view it is from a goes something like: when this occurs, that occurs; when this doesn't occur, that doesn't occur.
Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:04 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > 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 ___ 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
