Hi Ham, Thank you for your response. I am fine to break this up into pieces, and I am fundamentally expounding on a single concept in a wordy way. I have some time since I am between jobs, and will be starting with a company called Amgen on Monday. I like the breaks that I create since it gives me a chance to catch up and reevaluated my positions. There are several hundred MoQ posts (or more) that are unread. Too many to deal with but I will choose some of those which look interesting and relevant.
So, I will proceed with this discussion... On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Mark -- > > [Ham, previously]: >> >> So Pirsig's cosmology of Dynamic Quality proceeding on its >> unalterable course toward "betterness", and carrying everything >> in the universe with it, is not (in your opinion) deterministic. > > [Mark] >> >> As you may know, “betterness” is a bit of a tautology since it >> can only be described in hindsite when the direction of the >> universe is concerned. The same is true for “fitness” as it is >> used in the current theory of evolution. I prefer not to get into >> that quagmire, but I will say that there is direction, and that >> such direction can be seen as positive. > > The "positive direction" of the evolving universe is usually called > "teleology" in the vernacular of theism and metaphysics. For me, it > represents the "intelligent design" of a 'Master Plan' that transcends > evolution as well as cause-and-effect. I believe relational existence > serves a metaphysical purpose beyond the human notion of goodness or > morality. We are not privileged to "know" this truth, of course, for such > knowledge would undermine our freedom. It's my theory, however, that we are > created as an "other" to Essence in order to provide an extrinsic > perspective of its Value. Everything we experience in this world, whether > good, bad or indifferent, is a finite representation of Essential Value. > [Our resident nihilist has ridiculed this ontology as "a Creator's need to > be worshipped;" but inasmuch as the value appreciated by the sensible agent > is essentially his own, I take such mockery to be an expression of contempt > for any concept that smacks of "theism".] [Mark] Yes, the rebellion against anything smacking of theism certainly leaves a lot out of life's wonder and converts everything into a "science", which in my opinion is not metaphysics being used to its fullest potential. I use the word tautology to imply that a statement of fact is creating the very premises that it is based on. "Blue is my favorite color" "Why?" "Because it is Blue." "Things evolve towards betterness" "Why?" "Because things are better now". "The fittest survive" "Why? "Because what we have now is more fit" "How do you know?" "Because that is how evolution works, they wouldn't survive unless they were more fit". "So you mean that the fittest survive because they are more fit?" "Yes, exactly". As I understand teleology, it is the extrapolation of the appearance to and underlying phenomenon. This is a leap of faith since such extrapolation is missing a link. I have not problem with teleology so long as it is understood for what it is. I like your use below which I will comment on. The nihilist you speak of, would very readily claim that he/she can create something him/herself. Yet, any extrapolation of such a concept is prohibited. This is the Ego speaking. > > [Ham]: >> >> I can accept your statement that there is no morality without intention. >> What I cannot accept is that "things interpret morality", or that they >> should even need to. > > [Mark]: >> >> If man and woman decided not to pair up to form offspring, >> there would not be much to talk about now. Yet, I have heard >> that parents “choose” to have a child (and indeed they do). >> Now, not all parents make this choice. If all hydrogens chose >> to pair up with oxygen, this would be a different world altogether, >> but they do not. Can you imagine why they do not? Well, >> to those misinformed scientists, the concept of probability and >> activation energy and environment comes in. Well, this is nice >> hand-waving from a distance, but does not address the particular >> hydrogen atom in question. As you know, statistics is meaningless >> at the individual level. > > It's my understanding that scientists rely more on empirical evidence than > "statistics" > for their conclusions, using the latter to corroborate their results. > Animism is a novel way to round out the "universal value" thesis, but as you > yourself said, "One cannot claim morals if there is no intention," and the > MoQ treats value as equivalent to morality. I'm not aware of any > "intention" that isn't conscious. So, unless atoms, rocks and planets > possess some kind of conscious awareness, it is inconceivable that their > behavior could be intentional (valuistic). Again, the dynamic principles of > evolution are teleological -- functions of the Master Plan -- rather than > the whims or preferences of objects themselves. Science works both ways. One is to extrapolate from the specific to the general. The other is to extrapolate from the general to the specific. A general theory can be formed and "proven" through experimentation, or experimentation can deliver a theory. Statistics is probably used more than specifics where corroboration is required for concepts. Statistics is the fundamental premise of quantum mechanics, and much is explained through probability. When they try to measure the specific, they run into all sorts of problems both material and philosophical. Evolution is demonstrated through statistics since individual evolution cannot be seen. Cosmology uses statistics quite a bit as does chemistry. The concept of consciousness is relevant depending on what one means by it. I read an interesting book several years ago called the Physics of Consciousness. I cannot remember where I put it or I would confirm that title and give you the (now dead) author. He also has (or had) a web site. The premise is not unusual in that he proposes that consciousness is the underlying reality (or Perennial Philosophy), however his technique for exposure is interesting. There is of course the "conscious" and "unconscious" in psychological parlance. Most of our intention is unconscious, and we use reason after the fact to describe it. This is no different from describing the movement of the stock market with reasons, after the fact. The book "The Black Swan" deals with this concept. Back to the use of statistics: Statistics is used to describe the behavior of the flip of a coin a number of times. However, statistics has no bearing on each flip. Statistics cannot be used for the specific, only the general. We can give the probability of hydrogen combining with oxygen to form peroxide or water, but we cannot use that to describe what each hydrogen molecule is doing. In the same way, we can provide statistics in human behavior (Survey Says....!), but at the individual level we call it "Choice". > >> From a distance, and in geological time, the adventures of man, >> the rise and fall of civilizations, the creation and destruction of >> cities, >> etc, would be seen as highly deterministic, and statistics could be >> set up to predict overall behavior. What would be missing would be >> the individual’s behavior. In the same way, we consider our cellular >> activity to be determined, but don’t tell your pacemaker heart-beat >> maker that. If the natural pacemaker fails, another one takes over. >> How is that decision made? Who gets the job? Is it purely random? >> Maybe, maybe not. > > You have more faith in statistics than I do, Mark. What you seem to be > implying is that collective ("overall") behavior is statistically > determinable, whereas individual behavior is not. As I'm not a > statistician, I'll have to defer to your scientific knowledge of the > subject. You misinterpret me, I have no faith in statistics, and I think it is misused. That somebody has a 50% chance of surviving a cancer has no bearing on reality; it is meaningless for it does not say which side of the 50% one lies on. In fact, such statistics are destructive to the attitude and can be a death sentence. What I am saying is that overall behavior can be described and seem determined, whereas individual behavior is Choice. > >> Mark now, as it is being written: >> What I mean by interpretation is that our present incarnation is >> part of something much larger, and cannot stand alone as an >> anomaly. While it is pleasant to think that we are God's children >> and a plentiful world was provided us, I find that somewhat >> dismissive. Also, while it is lofty to consider ourselves as the >> creator of what is, such creation must be performed within a >> certain context. It is that context which I am discussing. It is >> possible to hold subjective creation concepts and its alternatives >> at the same time; through amalgamation a much stronger alloy >> is made of Thought. For, it is true that two to the power of >> exponents is much larger than one to the power of exponents, >> where the exponents are arrangements of thought. The use of Three >> is, of course, required for the creation of all things, otherwise >> we just have two sitting idly by. > > You've lost me here, Mark. What is the basis of your axiom that Three is > required for creation? Such an axiom goes as follows and I will use the Yin Yang by way of example, although it applies to much more: An apparition of the Yin Yang is the Dominant and the Submissive, or the Taking and the Giving. (I could just as easily said the Good and the Evil). These two polar extremes can just sit idly by and mind there own business. However, for reality to exist, they must interact. Therefore, we have a Third component which is Interaction. Thus we have a world of the Dominant and the Submissive AND their interaction. This makes Three. We have the dominant (the Father), the submissive (the Son), and their interaction (the Holy Ghost), the trinity of the Godhead. Most philosophies and religions use this premise, dialectics acts by creating through amalgamation. MoQ is lacking a formal appreciation of this which is why I have suggested Interactive Quality or IQ. This may be Value in your ontology. > >> Perhaps you consider the sunlight as something that is useful to us. >> The sun is transformed or interpreted into a concept of "life giving", >> and we make it meaningful as a concept. I do not think we can >> create the sunlight, but we interpret it through our sensibility as >> something that provides warmth. If indeed, as you say, we do >> create sunlight through our power of revealing Essence. Then >> such power must have its source, for something cannot be created >> with nothing. If Essence is the source of our valuation, then we >> get into a teleological circle. To continue in an objective fashion, >> plants interpret sunlight in another way, and the cyclical nature of >> evaporation and precipitation by the planet is yet another interpretation. >> Our interpretation of this light is through the form of human thought. >> Such thought becomes us, and provides meaning. However, >> objectively it would seem to be insufficient and a poor use of Occam's >> razor, to claim it is made through the spirit of man. > > I think you may have misunderstood my epistemology, Mark. Essence is the > Creator, but "all creation" is not what it appears to be. (I know that what > I'm about to say will sound like Marsha's argument for the Buddhist > 'no-self', but bear with me.) What we call "reality" is a world of > appearances actualized by our value-sensibility. The fundamental ground of > existence is being/non-being, which represents Essence in differentiated > (i.e., valuistic) form. Our experience of sunlight is one such valuistic > appearance. We don't "make" the sun or its light, but we do actualize their > physical form and relational properties as "real" existents and perceived > affects. That's the experience; thoughts and intellectual judgments about > the meaning of what we've experienced come later. > Yes, and I appreciate your teleology here. What Eckhart would call the Fundamental Ground (or something like that). As with the Hindu Maya, we can philosophize that we exist in a world of appearances. >From a scientific point of view, we create our appreciation of the world through our senses. What we create are called qualities. These qualities come from Quality (or Essence). However, Quality is not hidden, since it appears in its various forms. It is not on the other side, but what we are made of and what we interact with, and, the source of that interaction (three combined into one concept). Just like the "Triumverate" of Essentialism may be: Essence, the Self, and Value (being, not being (through negation), and the path between. But I will defer to you on that. >> It is not a far leap to state that our thoughts of Morality are similar >> in principle to the sunlight just described. We could say that >> morality is essential for sustaining human life, as we know it, in the >> same way that sunshine is. That is, a universal morality is harnessed >> to provide us with meaning within a human context. Another >> example would be the wind. We do not create the wind (I state >> categorically), yet we transform it into a means for propelling a >> sailboat. The wind of morality blows through us, and we convert it >> to personal meaning. The point, I suppose, is that subjectivism and >> objectivism live together in harmony and balance. We create the >> world as much as it creates us. > > Very eloquently stated, Mark, although the practical benefits you ascribe to > "universal morality" are values I ascribe to Essence (except for the > pragmatic application of wind to power a boat, which I credit to man's > innovative intellect). Tell me though, when that same wind develops > hurricane force and overturns the boat, is it still "moral"? Yes, I am extrapolating the human form of Morality to a more fundamental ground. The Hurricane is a form of morality, whether we consider it in a positive light or negative, is up to us. It is indeed a wonder of nature, but painful. I would assume that many survivors are "reborn" and become more selfless and appreciate life more. Of course there are those who will do just the opposite. Personally, I do not consider death to be a negative, but simply a curtain. While some would say that the "finality" of death makes life more meaningful, I would counter with the notion that the possibilities of death make life meaningful. > >> The physical world is indeed converted into an anthropocentric system, >> since it is interpreted by our minds as such. For the world to have >> meaning, it must be directly relevant to us. To be relevant, it must >> be an extension of us. Again, I would caution against forming a very >> fixed notion of cause and effect, since it works both ways. We are >> also relevant to the world and actually complete its present existence. >> The world cannot exist without you, thus you have purpose both >> personally and impersonally. The meaning of life is thus expanded >> exponentially. > > You have my complete agreement here, despite the differences in our > ontology. > I'll comment on the remainder of your post tomorrow, as this is running too > long and I'm running out of energy. > > Essentially yours, > Ham Adios compadre, Mark Small print: (what was written above was not checked for errors, but considered to be complete, mea culpa) > 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 > 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
