Hi Adrie, also Platt and Marsha -- On 9/25 at 11:04AM 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. ... Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is not reality (as the observer is part of reality).
Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy. "Causation by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the process of evolution as it has been explained by the MoQists. I'm not sure what is meant by your last statement. If observation (i.e., experience) creates the reality of which the observer is a part, then what is the true Reality? It would seem that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail.
Platt said:
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.
Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she probably realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle? What I said (to Marsha) was that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence," which does not include four-legged animals. This doesn't mean cats don't have "preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a fundamentally human attribute.
Marsha responded:
And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness?
Exactly, Marsha! And it's why I maintain that individual awareness--the conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence. So why are you running away with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is "anything we want to make it" or "think it is"?
Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have pointed out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically. Such thinking overlooks the fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value, which represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential Source. It is Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational manifestations. All the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from Essential Value. This is what gives the experiential world the coherence and intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual sensibilities.
Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course the MD is now taking. I think it has opened some new vistas which will round out RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology. Ultimately this could lead to a new kind of "pragmatism" that even William James would have found commendable. (But this may be overly optimistic.)
Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts". Essentially yours, 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
