I was trying out my new keybord , Marsha 2010/9/30 MarshaV <[email protected]>
> > 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 > -- 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
