Marsha, , no , i did not read it , but took a diagonal very fast reading impression,and i do not think the book has a right of existence.
Strangely enough, i find it very encouraging that you are making attempts to develop yourself and evolute. My comment on the book is not to dis-encourage you.The book is a monstruosity, cheap infotainment probably funded by the American creationist-lobby. If you want to read something that is understandable, really good, and still valuable,; "wholeness and the implicate order", David Bohm, this is still today on the bookshelf of every modern scientist. but it is written to be read by normal people.It is of stunning quality. Bohm does not create enigma's , he solves them.thats what experiments and scientists do, and thats what James and Pirsig are doeiing. greetzz. Adrie 2010/9/26 MarshaV <[email protected]> > > Adrie, > > The book is merely presenting the philosophical enigmas which > science so often chooses to ignore, preferring to get with the > experiments. > > Have you read the book? > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2010, at 5:30 AM, 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. ... > > > > 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
