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. ...
Further comment Adrie
Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is not
reality (as the observer is part of reality).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merely as an attachment to some issue's raised by Marsha,in the
interpretation
of one of the books she is mentioning, i gave a physikal interpretation
of
observations on reality(physikal) that is more accurate and more correct
than
the misconception about the role of the observer towards the recognition
about
reality.
Reality itself is not a simplification of the concept of
reality,simplifications
introduced by reading a book , that is clearly written to deny quantum
physiks
and it achievements.
The book is a lie from the first sentence's, some of the projected
truth's
date back to the first days that Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr were
debating the
possibilities/non possibilities of the emerging quantum physiks.
Mostly the positions they took then, are left now as relicts from the
past ,
endemic remnants of unhandy attempts made by E, H, B, to formulate what
was new.
The book sets of on these parameters , 50 years old , and forgotten for
a reason.
Reality, Physikal reality, has more than 2 properties and more than 2
appearance's
Probably, the event reality contains millions appearance's and millions
of properties.
Bohm's work, preferences, preferential states,patterns of preference,
show's
only some of the appearance's of reality.
In an earlier posting, i think it was towards Ian, i gave my reason's as
to why it
is better to stay away from the field of causuality,i maintain my
position.
i will reconcider only if you can tell me something about causuality
that i was
not aware of previous to this.
I will give some examples, as to why Marsha's book is not in tune with
science.
suppose the observer is observing the projected shadow of a tree in the
garden
sitting on a bench, did the observer interfere with this reality or did
he not
interfere merely by making the observation.?
The only possible answer is that he did not interfere,ie, did not create
this reality
by observing it,nor did he corrupt its appearance.
(this is the physikal answer)
The answer from quantum science is not to be understood by 99.8 % of the
audience.
The properties of this approach are outside normal expirience, however ,
this does not make them untrue.
The book of Marsha is a badly corrupted approach on the
copenhagen-convention.
In the background scenery of quantum physiks, these approaches are
refered to as the copenhagen drama.
(this was not the metaphysikal answer.)
end.Adrie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nb, i did not comment further on, because you are projecting fictional
reality
in plain words , home-brew, moonshined philosophy, occult science.
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
2010/9/26 Ham Priday <[email protected]>
> 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
>
--
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
