Adrie, What does this "exit<= exit=exit<=" mean?
Marsha On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:37 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > 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 ___ 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
