On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 8:57 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ham, > 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. > > 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?
ooo! ooo! I know. DQ. > 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. > > I'd say if we're talking "about" physics, THEN we're talking metaphysics - the underlying ideas of reality. > Your subjective sense of Quality as Value minimizes the concept. Yes, > Value > is one aspect, but not all of it. Mark, does this entail the disambiguation of Quality as an axis vs. a direction? A line vs. a vector? I posit a vector, simply because so much of our interpretation of the universe is vector-like - time only goes forward, gravity points down, entropy rusts and glass breaks. Which is why I like the physical analogy of Quality as the anti-entropic vector, but which ultimately transcends description since in it, "we move and breathe and have our being". Excellent post, Mark. You've raised some great questions and I'm eager to scan down the thread and see how Ham has answered them. Eager John > 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. > > 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. > > Just feeling punchy, > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Greetings Platt, Marsha, John and All -- > > > > On Sept 23 at 4:08 PM Platt wrote: > > > > SOM axiom: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it > so." > >> > >> MOQ axiom: Everything is good or bad before thinking at all. > >> > >> We can see what the MOQ is up against -- Pirsig vs. Shakespeare, > >> a far out idea vs.conventional wisdom. > >> > >> Do the levels get in the way of Pirsig's Copernican revolution? > >> > >> Does he cater too much to SOM thinking? > >> > > > > First of all, difference is the nature of existential reality; so there > is > > no "special difference" that applies to subject-object (SOM) experience. > As > > for Dynamic Quality being divided into four distinct levels, that is > > Pirsig's theory of "causation by preference", and it limits the MoQ to > the > > evolutionary process of scientific objectivism. > > > > No offense to RMP, but of course I side with Shakespeare on the question > of > > values. What is "good" or "bad" is man's judgment > > (experiencing/thinking/feeling) based on his value orientation. More > > recently, astrophysicist John Wheeler noted: "...what we say about the > > universe as a whole depends on the means we use to observe it. In the > act > > of observing we bring into being something of what we see. Laws of > physics > > relate to man, the observer, more closely than anyone has thought before. > > The universe is not 'out there', somewhere, independent of us. Simply > put: > > without an observer, there are no laws of physics." > > > > I think he understates the case. Not only are there no laws of physics, > > there is no physical world without an observer. A few days ago, Marsha > > quoted a developer of quantum physics as saying: "Observations not only > > _disturb_ what is to be measured, they _produce_ it." If, as Pirsig > wrote > > [in SODV], "the observation creates the reality," and if the sense of > > Quality is primary to objective experience, then two conclusions can be > > drawn: > > 1) An observer (subject) is necessary for objects to exist, and > > 2) Quality (Value) is the essence of empirical reality. > > > > Yes, Platt, this is "SOM thinking". But we MUST think in SOM terms when > > dealing with the differentiated world of objects and events. More > > importantly, from a metaphysical standpoint, we need to dispense with > > difference when postulating Ultimate Reality. The MoQ tries to straddle > > both dimensions, using the same terminology to describe "static" and > > "dynamic" phenomena, thus failing to break through finitude to an > absolute > > source. And therein lies much of the confusion regarding patterns, > > subjectivity, and intellect. > > > > The pattern I've noted in recent posts is an attempt to deny both > > objectivity and subjectivity and describe the world as if it could be > > understood without observation. That's like trying to explain time in a > > world where nothing changes. It makes no sense to deny the obvious; this > > only complicates the issue and its exposition. > > > > In a different thread, John pointed out another important concept that > has > > been slighted in the MoQ: Freedom. If goodness is fixed to Quality in > the > > universe, we have no alternative but to experience goodness. But we > > experience the bad along with the good. That's because Quality is only a > > relative measure of goodness--which allows for free choice. > > > > [John to Andre on 9/23]: > > > >> A response to Quality can be good or bad, right? You can harmonize, > >> or be out of tune. There is choice. > >> > >> Good can exist with freedom, because choice is as fundamental as value. > >> If there is no choice, there is no good. > >> > > > > Indeed, as I have argued previously, it is our CHOICE of value, not the > > patterns we construct from it, that is fundamental to human existence. > > > > Essentially speaking, > > 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 > > > 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
