Interesting to listen to Ha-Joon Chang.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tt60h

(Also a religion vs science piece in the same edition of Thinking Allowed.)

Ian

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:02 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

Reply via email to