On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote:
> Ham to Andre: > > Andre: > I do not follow this Ham. ZMM is the (inductive) recovery of Quality (DQ in > LILA)as the oldest idea in the world.LILA is the deductive extrapolation of > this Quality idea (sq). There is nothing 'artificial' about this...and here > is why: > > Two further observations which I find interesting. The MOQ has a close > 'allegiance' with William James ( his radical empiricism and his > pragmatism).James always disliked the 'in the beginning was the Word' > observation. For him, and I strongly believe that the MOQ agrees, it should > be reformulated as 'in the beginning was the deed', i.e. the action, the > experience. > > Secondly James (as well as Pirsig) suggested that radical empiricism > includes all that can be experienced but excludes all that is not. > > I therefore suggest to exclude a 'transcendent creator or source'. 'Quality > is the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the > world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it'!(Zmm,p245)Man is > the measure...the participant. > It irks me that Siddharta Gautama realized this more than 2500 years ago > and you still do not. [Mark] Hi Andre, I like your first paragraph above, but I have difficulty with the examples presented. Your example of Quality at the beginning is similar to Ham's negation. If we are talking about the beginning in terms of universe creation (as the Word implies), then I have the following question: Does MOQ necessarily need a beginning to function. Are the same premises valid in a universe that has always existed and is changingf (the Static Universe model)? Secondly, there is personal experience and there is vicarious experience, and there is abstract experience, among others. Would a mystical experience be included in radical empiricism? Would the abstract notion of a black hole be part of it? Are abstract ideas only based on experience? I can conceive of a translation for Quality which would provide the description of indescribable. This is a concrete attribute of Quality, but not one that can be experienced per se. I wouldn't bring Buddhism in unless you know what you are talking about, that statement is misleading and open to all sorts of interpretations. Quality could indeed be considered a stimulus for negation of Essence, but that still does not bring me very far in a meaningful understanding. Yes, I may be slow, but think of me as one of the general masses that we are trying to impart this message to. Most religions have Cliff Notes. Artificial would imply created by the mind, kind of like a constellation is artificial. It seems that radical empiricism can tend towards Scientific Materialism or Positivism. In your opinion, is this a correct interpretation? I can always learn. Thanks, Mark 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
