Hi Alex, Mark, Andre [Adrie mentioned] --
You three are coming at this concept from different vantage points, so it's
hard to follow the discussion.
For example, Mark has introduced a "holographic universe" (projection?)
which I don't see as relevant here, while Andre holds to the MoQ position
that "experience is the starting point" (of creation?) which misrepresents
my ontology. Now Alex is referring to something called "maps", which I
assume is an allegorical or paradigmatic approach to understanding the
indescribable Source.
[Mark to Andre]:
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 changing (the Static Universe
model)?
My simple answer is Yes. Whether the universe evolved from primordeal
matter or energy that "always existed" or was spontaneously created by a Big
Bang makes no difference insofar as the Primary Source is concerned. The
appearance of an "ordered system" is not something that begets itself at
some point in time, but is a constant attribute of essential value that
makes experiential reality possible. (Maybe this is a constant you can use
in your project, Mark.)
In this connection, I was appalled by Adrie's trite response to my
suggestion that one who doesn't acknowledge an absolute ontology remains "an
objectivist in a world of appearances that has no originating source":
[Adrie]:
Nope, the originating source is not there anymore, it left, along with
history.
I trust you gentlemen to realize that neither creation nor its history has
"left us", but that the continuous stream of events is man's perspective of
existential reality.
[Andre]:
'In the MOQ, nothing exists prior to the observation. The observation
creates the patterns called 'observed' and 'observer'. Think about it. How
could a subject and object exist in a world where there are no
observations?' (Annotn 65).
I can accept "observation" as a synonym for "experience" in delineating or
actualizing essents (objects).
However, I cannot comprehend how observation can occur without an
"observer". For me, the cognizant observer is proprietary value-sensibility
that is innate in each embodied self.
[Andre continues]:
Notice here that Pirsig does not ask how there can be an observer without
anything being observed (as Ham does) or, for that matter how there can be
anything thing to be observed without an observer (this would set up a
contradiction in terms because it would beg the question).
The MOQ starts with sentience and in this sense it would agree with
Siddhartha Gautama, be silent on 'beginnings'. The MOQ accepts the
idea of a 'big bang' beginning. It accepts this as a high quality
intellectual pattern of value but, of course is provisional.
I'm not qualified to pass judgment on the "quality" of the 'big bang'
theory, other than that cause-and-effect, like past-and-future, is an
intellectual precept derived from the temporal mode of human experience.
From the metaphysical perspective of Essence, cause and effect are equated
in potentiality and there is no history.
Thanks for all your contributions.
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
