What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them. . . . In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If wc decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better
William James. 2010/9/29 Ham Priday <[email protected]> > > Hi Marsha -- > > [Ham, previously]: > > When it comes to knowing something, there's nothing like experience! >> > > > [Marsha]: > >> Yes, this is what I thought too. Mary's knowledge (static patterns) >> is not comparable to her direct experience. I do not know why >> >> Dennett was fearful. Is intrinsic knowledge the boogyman? >> But I'm not the same kind of atheist as Daniel Dennett. - So yes, >> I agree, there's nothing like experience! But it's a huge unsolved >> problem for QP which some think may be pointing to something >> way beyond our present scientific understanding. It seems quantum >> physics never fails to work as expected, so what is going on? >> > > It is the Knower that makes knowledge "intrinsic". Unknown knowledge, like > unrealized value, is an oxymoron. Conscious awareness is proprietary to the > individual self, and consciousness is not a "distributable" commodity. > > "Never fails" is giving too much credit to quantum physics, Marsha. > Remember, Science operates on the principle that its conclusions can always > be revised when warranted by contrary evidence. Where empirical evidence is > lacking or inaccessible, scientific conclusions are mere theories, just like > the theories or doctrines of philosophy and religion which are not subject > to retraction. > > If you believe, as I do, that physical objects are valuistic constructs of > the conscious mind, you can understand that there is a practical limit to > experiential knowledge. Quantum physicists today are exploring phenomena at > or beyond this limit where particles cannot be distinguished from waves, > velocity from position, etc. In this submicron range, quantitative > measurements are either impossible or meaningless. This data field should > really be called "sub-quantum", in my opinion. > > We should not expect Science to resolve the enigma of metaphysical reality > because the solution is non-empirical -- not to be found in a study of > things and events. I don't know in what way your atheism is "a different > kind" than Dennett's, but if you read D'Sousa's complete essay, you'll see > that he divides the world of existence into "material stuff" and "mental > stuff," much as Socrates and Descartes did. Because existence is > differentiated and diversified, we can only know it as "otherness". But > Absolute Reality (i.e., the primary source) "knows no otherness." > > Therefore, unless you can accept two different realities, existence must be > a transitory phase or mode of an "ultimate source" which some call God and I > call Essence. Is Essence an atheistic concept? You'll have to judge this > for yourself. Speaking personally, I've found the philosophy of Essence far > more meaningful and fulfilling than a belief system that reduces reality to > disinterested interrelated patterns of an aesthetic nature. That's my > "conclusion", and in nearly eight decades of life on this planet I've seen > no evidence or logic from scientists or philosphers that disproves my > hypothesis. > > But life is a mystery that each of us must resolve in our own way. > Otherwise, what would be the point of it? > > 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
