Hey Ham, I have missed our discussions as well. I was in a bit of a rut, ontologically speaking (probably still am). Yes, a handle to shape a metaphysics, we'll see where it takes me... I learn much more from discussion than from reading and noodling. Cheers, Mark
On Thursday, September 30, 2010, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> >>> >>___ > > > 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
