David Morey to Dan.
DM: Once again you keep projecting on to me things I don't say or think. Yes experienced-reality as I call it is the primary reality, it is experience, it is reality, it is not a representation of some other reality, it is primary, we do not experience objects that are somehow separate from us, everything we experience makes up what we are, what we experience, it encompasses everything we can talk about, etc. My point is that it is odd to say that this is all there is to reality, that reality does not and cannot exist beyond the realm of human experience. If you say this, and DMB seems to be saying this too, you are creating an existential prison, because using the power of thought and I take science as the exemplar of thinking outside of and beyond our primary experience (as brilliantly described and conceptualised by the MOQ I would say), we can discuss and speculate on processes, experiences, histories, events, etc they go beyond direct human experience. These exist in previous ages of history or in different parts of the cosmos without being created (as you put it) by being situated within human experience. This is not to put these events and processes and histories in terms of SOM but to see that there are many other unfolding of SQ and DQ in the cosmos that go beyond human experience and human experience of SQ and DQ. Sure we only know of these other forms of SQ and unfolding DQ via our human experience but they clearly go beyond this, we speculate and can test via empiricism that our toys go on existing even when we hide them in the cupboard, and we can accept the evidence we have for our parents having lives before we were born, and for the existence of a period of time before there were any human beings. This is not to introduce SOM back into MOQ, as I do not suggest we are here adding any separate objects into our experience, rather by reason we must deal in the MOQ with processes/unfolding of SQ and DQ that go beyond either our individual or species based experience. Yes I reject that there are any experienced primary qualities that SOM is based on, we have only SQ and DQ qualities that SOM calls secondary qualities, but for me MOQ does not have to be an anthropocentric philosophy, because it can accept that there is a reality of SQ and DQ that goes beyond the human, this is what MOQ can reason on the basis of its conceptualisation of primary experience. Otherwise MOQ becomes Kantianism without SOM language, MOQ then simply gives us Kantianism without subject and objects by seeing things-in-themselves as non-existent, so that all reality is human reality, unable to exist without human co-relationism. Heidegger probably makes the same mistake, as he also replaces Kant's SOM approach with a Dasein formulated understanding of experience, but equally he is unable to offer a way to make sense of time before human conscious experience. You are so barking up the wrong tree when you think my challenge is bring back SOM into the MOQ, continental philosophy rejected SOM years ago, very old hat stuff now, but the problem with continental philosophy is its disconnect from science, and MOQ is falling into the same trap I believe given this anthropocentrism you and DMB seem to be advocating. Science has its own dualist, materialist, SOM problems, and MOQ and its good approach to SQ and DQ could be good conceptual tools for addressing these problems in science, but the isolation in human experience as if there are no other unfoldings of SQ and DQ beyond what humans are experiencing prevents any hope of engagement between the MOQ and science it seems to me. I am not saying this position that you are taking is worthless, it is an improvement on SOM, but it isolates MOQ from science in exactly the same way as continental philosophy is isolated. The Speculative Realist school of thought is very new and very active and is precisely opening up this problem and addressing this issue by putting realism back into philosophy and conceptual thought. Where MOQ says DQ, SR is talking about openness and contingency as disallowing determinism and the illusion that the world and experience can be understood in terms of just laws or justv objects or even just SQ I might add. comment Adrie find the flaws or waffle around them http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1658/1/Anthropic_Explanations_in_Cosmology_.pdf Idea's come first, idea's produce matter, idea's generate the world we live in.... was a proposal made by John Wheeler in it from bit. He called it the participatory anthropic priciple It was never accepted,and later on,quantum physiks came up with the proof that a single elektron can act as an observer,to collaps the wavefunction. there is no need for the universe so to speak, that there are observers to make reality happen. the idea is thus abandoned. I made a statement once , that quantum physiks is partially high-end philosophy and to avoid that any or every som dictum is popped,i strongly suggest to read at the end of the article, ""instituto de filosofia, Madrid"" and in the header the name of the man who wrote the article, Jesus Mosterin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jes%C3%BAs_Moster%C3%ADn kind regards, Adrie 2013/5/1 David Morey <[email protected]> > Hi Dan > > Exactly, the MOQ and Robert Pirsig accept evolution, problem is evolution > is not compatible with anthropocentrism or experience seen as an idealistic > prison, so maybe reading these errors into the MOQ is very bad philosophy I > am suggesting. Thanks for the concern, can assure you the only thing that > has broken down is a very poor conception of what the MOQ is saying. > > All the best > David M > > Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hello everyone > > > >On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, David Morey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Hi MOQers > >> > >> Does SQ and DQ act to give us evolution and create professors > >> long before anyone ever gets around to coceptualising these > >> qualities in human experience? The guy who wrote Lila > >> seems to think this: > >> > > > >Dan: > > > >Come on, David. No one is saying that the MOQ denies evolution. What a > >completely crazy thing to say. > > > > > >> > >> "The law of gravity, for example, is perhaps the most ruthlessly static > >> pattern of order in the universe. So, correspondingly, there is no > single > >> living thing that does not thumb its nose at that law day in and day > out. > >> One could almost define life as the organized disobedience of the law of > >> gravity. One could show that the degree to which an organism disobeys > this > >> law is a measure of its degree of evolution. Thus, while the simple > >> protozoa just barely get around on their cilia, earthworms manage to > >> control their distance and direction, birds fly into the sky, and man > goes > >> all the way to the moon. > >> A similar analysis could be made with other physical laws such as the > >> Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it seemed to Phaedrus that if one > >> gathered together enough of these deliberate violations of the laws of > the > >> universe and formed a generalization from them, a quite different > theory of > >> evolution could be inferred. If life is to be explained on the basis of > >> physical laws, then the overwhelming evidence that life deliberately > works > >> around these laws cannot be ignored. The reason atoms become chemistry > >> professors has got to be that something in nature does not like laws of > >> chemical equilibrium or the law of gravity or the laws of > thermodynamics or > >> any other law that restricts the molecules' freedom. They only go along > >> with laws of any kind because they have to, preferring an existence that > >> does not follow any laws whatsoever." > >> > >> Clearly DQ and SQ can be used to tell a cosmic story that is pre-human > >> experience and is not in an anthropocentric prison. > >> I suppose the usual suspects will claim they were never making > >> anthropocentric restrictions about such reasonable knowledge. > >> If only they were not so confused in the first place. Funny how post > >> modernists like Matt used to get blown off, now that the > >> MOQ seems to have turned into a form of anti-realist post modern > >> philosophising round here. What a shame, can anyone > >> help to save the MOQ from this terrible fate? Is quality not real? If > only > >> DQ is real and DQ cannot be defined how can there > >> be truth, SQ can be judged but apparently it is not real as it is not > >> experienced. Yet Pirsig embraces truth. What has gone wrong > >> since I was last here? > > > > > >Dan: > >I am unsure what your problem is--perhaps you are suffering a meltdown; > >those things have been known to happen here--but it is apparent us talking > >is doing no one any good. > > > >Thank you and good luck, > > > >Dan > > > >http://www.danglover.com > >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 > -- parser 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
