Hi Arlo
I think that this is why we agree on so many things - because we are
thinking in a very similar way and there is not a lot of difference
between what we do think or believe.
However, having said that, I would say that "real" cannot be anything
other than DQ + SQ - this is the MoQ definition of Reality after all.
SQ without DQ can never be anything but illusion - the map is a
representation, nothing more.
On 11/09/2011 15:25, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
[Horse]
Mathematics exists and I think you are being slightly disingenuous about this
as you know I am not referring to the purely "physical" or S/O world.
[Arlo]
Well but then you are arguing MY point (which I don't mind, of course). As I
said, in a MOQ what is "real" is what has "experiential value". Mathematics
"exists" by its experiential value.
This is why I adamantly maintain that "illusions" are the result of SOM
thinking, and that patterns of value in a MOQ are experientially real.
You didn't answer, so I ask again, of what possible benefit is it from a MOQ
perspective to say "everything except for DQ is an illusion"? Does that help us
navigate experience? Does that improve the way I ride my motorcycle or that I
can count on it to carry me from here to the pub?
I'm not saying that everything except DQ is illusion. I think I did say
that a while back and I think I was mistaken so that may be where this
disagreement has arisen. As I have said above it is a combination of DQ
and SQ that constitutes what is real. Both the experience and the
expression of that experience are necessary - one without the other
precludes reality.
[Horse]
God exists. Fairies exist. There is life after death.
If you believe that any of these are other than delusion then we have no
common ground for discussion of the difference between illusion and delusion.
[Arlo]
God, fairies and "life after death" are patterns of value. Some are good, some
are not, some are better, some are worse. But you see, again, you are arguing
my point.
"God exists" is an existential claim. This is an illusion. Of course "God" or
any other "<insert word>" has no existential reality, that is a claim about
primacy. And I am NOT making nor defending this.
But the concept of "god" has very real empirical reality. It is NOT an
illusion, people experience this concept every day. It has altered human
activity, it has underscored countless works of art and music, it has
transformed entire civilizations (for better or worse is not my point).
"God exists" as an existential claim is a delusion - to me at least - as
the existence of God can be applied nowhere except at the Intellectual
level and as such becomes faith. Even with mathematics, number can be
applied non-intellectually - i.e 2 apples etc.
Pirsig also addresses this in Lila when he talks about religion and
insanity - this is also where Dawkins got the title for The God Delusion.
The concept/idea of God is very different to what is related as the
experience of God.
A concept is an expression of experience, not experience itself, and is
how SQ relates to DQ.
[Horse]
I think the answer to the above is that to the people that experienced the
bombs in Japan they were real as both DQ and SQ were involved.
[Arlo]
I think this is a very problematic division, and I think it is laden with
subjectivism (only that which I have experienced is "real").
There is no doubt (as I mentioned in another thread) that there is a
distinction, as Peirce made (and James as DMB pointed out), between belief
fixed on empirical knowledge and belief fixed on authority, but I would not
call this distinction "real/illusion". Beliefs held via authority have very
real pragmatic consequences in the world, they alter our activity, they impact
us in very real ways.
As above, it is the combination of experience and expression that is real.
Quality = Reality = DQ+SQ
The difference between belief fixed on empirical knowledge (DQ/SQ) and
the belief fixed on authority (SQ or Faith) is the distinction between
real and non-real. Illusion (non-real) is also distinct from delusion
(faith).
That faith (belief through authority) has crappy consequences doesn't
make it any less delusion and not illusion.
[Horse]
This is the MoQ difference between reality and illusion.
[Arlo]
I disagree. And by this measure the MOQ is nothing more that a
soliptic/subjectivist view of the world.
Only if you conflate illusion and delusion.
I do not have to experience the inorganic patterns of value on the moon to
experience the intellectual patterns that describe the composition of moon
rocks. One is not "real" and one is not "illusion".
Not quite sure what you're getting at here so I might be answering the
wrong question
The experience of being on the moon is not the same as handling a rock
that originated from the moon.
If you have been to the moon then you have experienced being on the moon
and whatever that entails.
Reading about it or being told about it is not the same.
Cheers
Horse
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
