On Sep 26, 2010, at 2:48 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > 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). > > Ham: > 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. > > Ham: > 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? > > Ham: > 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"?
Marsha: Not 'reality is whatever you WANT', that would mean reality could include the results of wishful thinking. I cannot wish to be a raven, or to have wings for flying, and act on either of those wishes. - On the other hand, that 'reality is anything you think it to be' seems to me to be the same thing as saying 'patterns of value HAVE Lila'. Reality is a reflection of the patterns flowing through one's consciousness. I have for a long time struggled with your posts concerning self/individual. I do seem to have individual awareness whose experience is in the immediate present; while, at the same time, I deny the existence of a statically constructed, independent psychological self. The self vaporizes upon investigation; it seems to be not other than habits of thought. > Ham: > 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. Marsha: 'Solipsism' is an intellectual static pattern of value that does not exist other than as a reified abstract conceptual construct. Should I defend against 'solipsism' using another such intellectual static pattern of value? All static patterns of value are processed through mind. How is that so horrible, except to a subject/object oriented intellect? For me the MoQ is Reality = Value(unpatterned experience/patterned experience.) > 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.) Marsha: "Onward to glory we go! " > Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts". > > Essentially yours, > Ham Marsha ___ 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
