On Sun, 7/31/11 at 6:47 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham and All,
In S/O metaphysics existence is divided into REAL
EXISTENCE and INTENTIONAL EXISTENCE.
Such a division depends upon the intervention of a CREATOR
of infinite capabilities, in order to verify the infinite and finite
existence of the logic of religion. DQ/SQ is a more logical
division of existence paving the way for evolution as the
arbiter for different perceptions of reality in existence.
A few comments ...
I don't know where you people get the idea that the S/O precept of existence
is "metaphysical". Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which deals
with ultimate reality, specifically in terms of ontology and cosmology. As
such, it encompasses both relational existence and Absolute Reality. A more
"logical" division would be "Experiential Reality" and "Fundamental
Reality", or, as I define it, Existence and Essence.
"Intervention" is an inadequate and misleading term for the Creator, usually
implying a divine or anthropomorphic Being who "rules over" his creation.
This, indeed, is a religious dogma inconsistent with traditional
metaphysics.
In no way is evolution an "arbiter" of perception. Arbitration,
discernment, or judgment is the exclusive function of a sensible agent.
Evolution is not a conscious agent but simply the precept (based upon the
space/time mode of experience) that creation is a temporal process.
Debate about belief systems cannot be verified in experimental
logic. There is no way for a finite being to experience infinite
existence. There can be no metaphysics for S/O Existence,
but only an unverifiable belief system.
I completely agree with the above statement.
Pirsig wanted to overcome this bone of contention and embraced
the metaphysics in which the first split is between Dynamic
(undefined) and Static (defined) reality in existence. Existence is
existence.
Pirsig envisioned a single definition for existence, and embraced
evolution as the explanation of reality by the perception of
different levels in existence. DQ is indefinable yet perceptual
reality, SQ is definable conceptual reality. This mirrors experience
and ends the debate about natural, supernatural realities. DQ is
indefinable not supernatural, and the religious wars in history are
shown to follow the meanderings of the irrational metaphysics
of S/O.
Again, there is no "metaphysics" of S/O that I am aware of. (You just
denied it in the preceding paragraph.) No doubt Pirsig wanted to overcome
many traditional belief systems, but arbitrarily assigning different levels
to existence simply to "mirror experience" doesn't achieve this. Nor does
splitting existence into Dynamic and Static realities. There is nothing
inherently "indefinable" in the former, and nothing particulary "conceptual"
in the latter. Empirical existence is, in fact, characteristically
"dynamic" in its natural processes, while there is no more logical
justification for positing what is indefinable as "dynamic" than calling it
"supernatural".
Thanks for the expose, Joe. It's a thoughtfully prepared defense of the
MoQ.
Speaking for myself,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On 7/30/11 10:08 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels. But
WHY?
This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let
me
count the ways". Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic
attraction
more insightful or comprehensible?
Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you
don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no".
"Oh My Stars!" is so much more real!
A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the
evaluation of a description of evolution.
Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of
related
things and events. Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I
submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as
the
primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an
evaluation of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static
patterns,
conventions, causes and effects. This not only avoids having to explain
complex >> and largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it
affords a
conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology.
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
