Hi Joe --
Hi Ham,
Hopefully we are at the crux of our disagreement. Physics,
metaphysics follow differing logical rules. The logic for physics
(mathematics) is incapable of describing evolution (levels in
existence), metaphysics.
The only "mathematical logic" I am aware of that can be applied to
metaphysics concerns the prime unity (Infinity) vs. differentiated existence
(Finitude). This may be expressed as 1/α = 0 or α/N = α, neither of which
is conceptually meaningful. Evolution is a serial process, whether
conceived as a "hierarchy of levels" or not; so I don't see how it can be
described numerically. I'm not a mathemetician, but if you have a numerical
formulation for continuously unfolding events, I'd like to see it.
Pirsig suggests that the template of metaphysics is DQ/SQ.
This enables a place in logic for indefinable reality as
exemplified by evolution, levels in existence. Metaphysically
existing levels enable a concept for differing individualities.
Morality has a logic of differentiation in metaphysics as well
as a Faith-based differentiation!
By making reality "indefinable" Pirsig's template essentially ignores
metaphysics, which is why the MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis in the
classical sense. What he has constructed is a euphemistic paradigm
("figures of speech", as Steve would say) for evolutionary existence. To
claim that ultimate reality progresses toward betterness because the
physical universe evolves in nature is a misconception that lacks
metaphysical support. Morality is relational (rather than
"differentiated"), and really applies only to man's behavior in the world,
so again I see no logical justification for attributing it to the physical
universe. Also, can you explain what you call the "Faith-based
differentiation" of Morality?
MOQ, proposes an indefinable, evolving reality. This surpasses the
possibilities in mathematical logic of physics by acknowledging evolution.
The error message for the 1/0 (a necessary concept of evolution), removes
SOM intentional/real existence as a possible metaphysical construct for
evolution.
Iasmuch as "1/0" is an invalid mathematical expression that leads to an
error, why do you consider it a "necessary concept of evolution"? And what
do you regard as "real existence" as opposed to "intentional existence"?
Evolution is an empirical principle which derives from the temporal mode of
human experience. Were we able to experience the universe as a 'fait
accompli' evolution would be meaningless.
Imho evolution is not face [faith?]-based. A perception of metaphysics as
the MOQ
that Pirsig realized describes reality. MOQ is more reasonable than SOM
in
identifying individuality as evolutionary existence rather than the
intentional existence of SOM. DQ/SQ is separate from a logical definition
of SOM demanding participation by a Faith-based Creator. There is no
reasonable explanation. Logical Metaphysics rules.
"Reasonable" is subjective when undefined entities are involved. I assume
the empirical subject-object worldview is what you mean by "intentional"
existence. I can't relate to your cosmology, Joe, because I look at Value
as a verb rather than a "moral level" (see my post of 9/13), Like
"desire" and "love", Value infers an active agent, so existence is
unreasonable to me without a cognitive (value-sensible) subject.
MOQ explains evolution as hierarchical levels in existence. The
Intentional/Real division of existence in SOM demands a preexisting belief
in an uncaused/cause prior to existence. Can only a negation of a
perception
describe a new conception? How?
Hypothetical levels are no more reasonable than natural process over time,
which is how we actually experience and record evolution. It's pointless to
introduce Essentialism in an analysis of the MoQ which rejects an
"intentional" agent. The comparison you are trying to draw between the
"intentional/real division" and the "self/other dichotomy" is invalid for
several reasons, mainly that SOM does not acknowledge a "real" division.
.
The logical thought, mathematics, is the definition for physics.
The belief in a supernatural being is Faith, SOM.
That existential reality depends on the relation of subjects and objects is
an empirical precept that has nothing to do with "faith". What is your
belief in a "superhuman" Quality based on if not Faith?
The acceptance of a determined metaphysical logic for reality,
indefinable,
not non-existent evolution as levels in existence, DQ/SQ is reasonable.
Whatever people believe is reasonable to them.
Nice try, Joe. Were it not for the inconsistencies of MoQ vs. Essentialism
you might have scored some points. As it stands, they are metaphysically
incompatible.
Best regards,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On 9/12/11 5:06 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Joe --
Hi Ham and all,
Evolution! Neither the definition for evolution or the reality
of evolution is determined by an actor's value system, or
the mores of his/her society. DQ/SQ metaphysics supports
indefinable/definable reality in evolution!
If DQ/SQ applies only to evolution it is not a "metaphysics" of Reality
(defined or undefined) but a euphemistic paradigm for space/time
existence.
There is no logical or philosophical justification for assuming temporal
process as a condition of ultimate (uncreated) Reality.
Essentially speaking,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On 9/12/11 1:04 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
We all have the freedom to act (or not act) within the limitations of
our
physical being. Volitional acts are motivated by one's sense of value.
Whether a particular action is moral or not is determined by both the
actor's value system and the mores of his/her society.
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
