Andre Broersen aan moq_discuss details weergeven 10:51 (10 uren geleden) Ham to Mark:
Generally I don't use physics to support metaphysics, nor is it good practice. Andre: How can one make any metaphysical statement not based on the physical sciences Ham? I would have thought it good practice, sound practice, solid practice to make any philosophy verifiable (along the rigours of scientific investigation).Northrop has spent quite a few pages on the relationship between both endeavors (the latter deriving from the 'results' of the former) and, indeed, attributing the shortcomings (and blatant blunders of the latter) on the misinterpretations/mistakes of the former.(many of these having come to light through subsequent scientific investigations/discoveries, where philosophical/metaphysical re-interpretations have lagged behind)...until radical empiricism began to be properly argued for. Perhaps they could mutually affirm,inform,correct and guide eachother in a DQ/sq relationship. Perhaps I misunderstand your meaning? Ham: 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". Andre: Here you seem to be positing, once again, a dichotomy, an opposition, between observer and that which is observed, between the species and the 'fitted to their environment'. The one arises out of the other and the the other arises out of the one.(successfully or not) Ham: 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. Andre: I think that the MOQ suggests that it is not a 'directed' process. The MOQ shows that 'there is a tendency ...in the universe for life to improve its situation where possible but this improvement is not pre-determined by physical laws nor consciously directed by a God towards a pre-set defined purpose or end'. (Anthony's PhD, p 92). - Tekst uit oorspronkelijke bericht weergeven - Comment Adrie, well yes , Andre, something took my attention in your answer. (Andre) how can one make ant metaphysikal statement not based upon the physikal science? i'm under the strong impression that it not possible at all, having a metaphysikal world, without a physikal present world The intellectual level cannot exist without presence of the other levels,you need a physikal world to evolve to metaphysiks=>quality. only inorganic,organic biologic, intellectual, parented by quality, if you step outside of this , you are an alien probably. Andre, "i think that the moq suggests that it is not a directed proces",The moq shows etc... I agree on both you and Ant , Andre, but might i add this , I think that as well the moq, evolution, response to evolution, as in "the origin of species by means of natural selection",Physiks , quantum physiks( especially quantum darwinism), are suggesting as well in content context as evolutive development, that all these fields , like life itself are responding to quality, and moreover, are the parent of quality itself , quality is the framework, the boundary as no boundary(undefined), so escaping som. But imho. QUALITY! Theology<=Theology<=Theology<= greetz, Adrie 2010/10/1 Ham Priday <[email protected]> > > Hi Mark (Andre mentioned) -- > > My response to John must have crossed your post back to me. > > > Imagine, if you will, that you were alone in the world (as a human). >> You had no need for communication, no thoughts as words >> would cross your mind. You would be unaware that your >> consciousness even existed, because there would be nothing >> to mirror it. This would be a state of complete unity. >> Now, along comes another person, and you realize that your >> relation to the world has changed, because you get feedback. >> This is a human condition. A network of communication is set up >> between us, that network becomes our thoughts. This is what I >> mean by socialization. Only we as humans can share this network, >> because we have like minded brains (so to speak). This network >> has no meaning to a colony of ants, nor should it. The planets >> have no use for this network, it is just a human thing. And as such, >> this, what we call intelligence, is just one of many such things. >> But it is our very own network. >> > > Your network analogy is elegantly stated, but "shared intelligence" does > not adequately define subjective consciousness. What you've described could > equally apply to the worldwide computer network. It's "our very own > network" but it is only a communication channel for information, not the > process of intellection. > > Again you have effectively circumvented the cognitive agent of awareness > which doesn't need other persons (i.e., social exchange) in order to > experience otherness. You (and John, Andre, Mary, etc.) try so hard to > disinherit the subjective self that one gets the impression you're ashamed > of it. As a consequence, you all tend to support the objective view that > consciousness simply emerges from biological evolution. > > For example, notice how Andre responded today: > >> Here you seem to be positing, once again, a dichotomy, >> an opposition, between observer and that which is observed, >> between the species and the 'fitted to their environment'. >> The one arises out of the other and the the other arises >> out of the one.(successfully or not). >> > > I have posited a self/other dichotomy. A dichotomy in not a process of > "emerging" or "arising", but rather a mutually dependent duality which, in > my ontology, represents the primary division of existence. Since everything > that follows this dichotomy (in space/time) is differential in nature, > Self/Other initiates all Difference. It accounts for being and nothing, > life and death, here and there, active and passive, goodness and evil, > attraction and repulsion, large and small, light and dark, and all other > contrariety experienced in the relational universe. > > > Now, I have no idea what this has to do with Quality, >> but I'll figure it out. >> > > Allow me to figure it for you. The essence of this dichotomy is sensible > value, the affinity of the cognizant subject for its estranged Essence. The > "patterns" are our own proprietary value constructs. > > Fantastic as it sounds, this simple ontology is consistent with both > physics and spirituality, accommodates the MoQ's Quality (Value) in the > existential sense, and offers a transcendental meaning to life which is > absent in most metaphysical theories. > > Thanks for the opportunity, Mark. > > Essentially yours, > 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
