Welcome Alex, Hi Mark --
Thanks for responding to my post. As you've both said a lot within an
empirical framework, perhaps the best way for me to comment is to select the
statements that most interest me.
[Mark said]:
I like Ham's notion of accepting and seeing where it leads.
However, being the biochemist I am, I look for cause. What divides
the subject object? I would say that the social aspect, as you note,
dominates the subjective through the use of words. The only purpose
of such words are for communication. Such communication does
indeed spread like a viral infection (to use an analogy), and creates
cohesion and battle.
Cause and effect is an intellectual paradigm for events experienced within a
time continuum.
My purpose here is to establish fundamental parameters for the origin of
experience, and these are pre-intellectual. Again, I consider the primary
existential division a Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy. Sensibility is
self-evident: it's our localized or proprietary awareness. This encompasses
self-awareness (consciousness of a personal identity), plus the awareness of
an environment external to the self. That environment is an "other" to us,
and we know it only in terms of its value (relational, quantitative,
qualitative, intellectual, esthetic, and emotional). Objects and events,
including our biological bodies, are but finite representations of essential
value that constitute our existential reality.
We sense Value pre-intellectually. What we "experience" is an ordered
system in space/time consisting of a diversity of objects (i.e., "patterns")
which we learn to recognize, manipulate, and utilize for our needs and
desires. I maintain that the universal order of existence is a valuistic
aspect of Absolute Essence. This gives us a common ground with which to
communicate, socialize, collaborate, and "moralize" our species.
[A. said]:
What dawned on me today, while being out walking... is that MoQ and
Systems Theory within the limits of ordinary epistemology becomes each
other's DUALS, in a kind of mathematical sense. That is, statements made
within one becomes dual to some other statement made within the other.
This hangs together with the view that the one is overcoming the Cartesian
dichotomy by turning everything into subjects, while the other does just
the
opposite.
You could also see the dual relationship comparing the divisions. MoQ
states:
Primary experience is divided into
1. Dynamic Quality
2. Static Quality
The second is then divided into:
2.1 Physic
2.2 Biological
2.3 Social
2.4 Intellectual
In Systems Theory you divide what could be described into:
1. Concrete Systems
2. Abstract Systems
Next, both types can be divided into:
A. Closes systems
B. Open Systems
And finally open systems are measured according to a scale ranging from
B.1 Dynamic
B.2. Mechanic (static)
And thus the one tells you exactly that which the other doesn't.
I would say that, like Mr. Pirsig, you have defined too many categories. It
doesn't matter (for my purposes) whether the phenomena we experience are
biological, physical, or electromagnetic. Such intellectual classifications
are only useful when the objective is to apply universal principles to
practical solutions. Belief systems, individual freedom, social justice,
virtue and morality are not derived from natural law but from the values we
share in common as human beings. Nature has favored us with the instincts,
nutrients, and rationality to survive and procreate. But until we
understand our unique position and role in existence (which is a not a
scientific but a philosophical challenge) we shall never achieve the ideal
culture that our value-sensibility aspires to.
[Mark replied]:
I do not think the brain is any more advanced now (biologically)
than it was say 20,000 years ago. However, the complexity of thought is,
because we have to learn so many facts. It is still the same brain, with
the
same emotions, but layered with a bunch of sticky notes. We call this
advance, but I believe it simply covers the subjective with the objective.
We look for solutions without rather than within.
I agree with that analysis, Mark. Empirical facts won't make us any wiser.
More introspection is needed; but it must be based on a coherent conception
of ontology that allows for a Designer as well as the Design. Toward that
end, I'd appreciate a prospective from both of you on the value epistmology
I have outlined. In short, it it worth pursuing?
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
