exit<= exit=exit<= 2010/9/30 Ham Priday <[email protected]>
> > Greetings Mark -- > > I see you have a new handle. Where have you been keeping yourself? (I > miss your insightful queries.) > > > > I find it interesting how you use the metaphysics of physics >> to support a metaphysics of Quality. One metaphysics supporting >> another. Perhaps, as you say, they are both pointing towards >> some Truth. More than likely, they are both pointing the other >> way to an ultimate source. Both arise from the same place, >> so it is no coincidence that you find justification for "non-physically >> provable ontologies in the physical sciences. >> > > Generally I don't use physics to support metaphysics, nor is it good > practice. The Quantum Enigma seems to be on everyone's mind right now, and > with it the idea that Truth is ambiguous; so I thought someone should assign > Science and Philosophy to their proper truth-seeking roles. It is true, > however, that we are all trying to solve an enigma that is beyond our > finitely-limited range of experience. > > > As you know, I have had a hard time with the evolutionary aspect >> of Quality as it has been described. Particularly since evolution >> describes adaptation towards an environment. What would the >> environment governing the evolution of Quality be? So, it is important >> to move away from the physical concepts governing evolution >> as these are only dead ends. If indeed Quality governs evolution, >> then we can talk metaphysics. >> >> Your subjective sense of Quality as Value minimizes the concept. >> Yes, Value is one aspect, but not all of it. We have had discussions >> on your negation of Essence, and while it is an attractive concept >> (in an ineffable way), it does imply duality. My question would be, >> What is the source of that duality? How is it that the subjective splits >> from the objective? Your physical support in terms of us being part >> of the equation we are describing is clear but circular. >> > > Mark, I too have wrestled with the Quality concept, as quality (like all > relative judgments) requires the sensibility of an observer. To the degree > that evolution generates species better fitted to their environment, I > suppose one can say, euphemistically, that it is "governed by quality". (For > human beings, at least, the results are salutary.) But if evolution is a > directed process with a "final goal", the proper term is Teleology. And > teleology implies a Designer whose unknown objective is part of the enigma. > > As I have posted before, such metaphysical concepts >> are encapsulated in the notion of State Vector Collapse, >> where probability is made "real". ... >> >> but suffice it to say that (in my opinion) duality only exists >> in the form of social communication. Without that mirror >> of other, no duality exists. Like you say, it is impossible >> to avoid SOM in discussion, but that does not mean >> that it is thus the only alternative. >> > > I strikes me as strange when people define the sense of otherness as a > "social" function. To me this is a Pirsigian concept intended to circumvent > subjects and objects. Surely most of our experience deals with otherness, > whether it's communication, manipulation, ingestion, exploration, > construction, or just plain thinking. When Descartes developed his Cogito, > he was incommunicado, isolated from every external perception and belief, > focusing only on pure thought. It was enough to convince him that he > existed, he was the knowing subject, and the existence of everything > else--the 'content' of experience--was in doubt. > > > The phrase "observation creates reality" is a little nonsensical >> unless one is trying to convey an image. We could say that >> nothing exists without observation, but how would we know? >> One could just as easily say that "reality creates observation". >> If what you are saying is that no reality existed before your >> observation of it, then history itself has no meaning. >> > > It is important to distinguish between "reality" and "existence", Mark. > What we create via experience are images or patterns of being that represent > the values on which we are focussed. In totality these patterns constitute > "our reality" as existents, or simply Existence. But what we experience as > reality is relational, transitory, and therefore illusory. > We have no direct knowledge of primary or ultimate Reality, nor any reason > to deduce that it is divided, evolutionary, or "created". > > > I noticed you qualified your statement (#2) by relating >> Value to empirical reality. Here you seem to be providing >> a definition by self referencing empiricism. There is honestly >> no equation in that statement that provides any further >> insight into a metaphysical notion. Yes, empiricism is defined >> as subjective, but for that you do not need to capitalize >> the V in value. >> > > I capitalize the 'V' in value for the same reason that Pirsig capitalizes > the 'Q' in quality. Value is a realized aspect of Essence, not Reality > itself. Even in the empirical world, Value is essential, although we only > experience it differentially. > > I would enjoy discussing Essentialism further, Mark, but am not sure where > this is leading. Since we're restricted to keeping these dialogues within > the province of the MoQ, I suggest that you frame your questions so that > they address MoQ-related issues specifically. > > Nice to hear from you again, Mark. > > Best regards, > > 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
