p.s. Not to worry about it. I think you're a tuba. Now back to sleep.
On Sep 30, 2010, at 1:21 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote: > But in fact , Parsi fal,---Fal Parsi, ....Parsi is slang for Farsi in > Persian, and i do believe that Mark is indeed , Farsi-rooted > Or so to speak, Iranian-originating , probably islamic. > So exit in advance if Ham thinks to convert him, <= exit > > But i could be wrong! > > > 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 ___ 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
