Hi Case By the way, Dirac when was asked about this, how (quantum collapse happens) i.e.how the possible becomes reduced to the actual he replied: nature has to choose. I would not suggest any deist god the planner here, but is not nature a process of creation? is it Ops as Platt has been saying? or is it some kind of active work in progress, or is it determined by laws (which is a deist idea really, certainly when you look at the history of it as an idea). I prefer the middle one: active work in progress, which does seem to include Ops but also seems to include some kind of struggle to create, to climb up the levels, to build complexity and seek out new possibilities.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > Hi Case > > I agree with everything you ay below until you get to teleology. > I see no clearknockdown argument against some kind of > weak version of teleology that says that in any situation there > are a number of possible outcomes and any active system > can make choices about which outcome it will act to bring about, > and exactly where we draw a line about what sort of systems > can do this is unclear, maybe atoms make choices when they capture > electrons even. > > Otherwise, great post. > > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Case" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2007 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Heads or tails? > > >> [Kevin] >> But you do recognize the reality of others (lower case o)? Which is to >> say >> you and me and others enjoy individual lives. From this perspective, >> what >> is Quality (capital Q)? Is Quality (capital Q) the same as quality >> (lower >> case q)? >> >> [Case] >> My view of Quality is a bit different than some. I regard Quality as The >> Way. It exists in the moment of sensation; when we instantly begin the >> process of classifying sensation into perception. It is a "Blink" moment >> when we apprehend something as good or bad. It can only be experienced. >> It >> can not be defined because each experience is different. When you try to >> define it you quickly degenerate into legalism. >> >> Jesus put it this way: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! >> for >> ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier >> matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have >> done, >> and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a >> gnat, >> and swallow a camel." >> >> Lao Tsu said this: "Thus it was that when the Tao was lost, its >> attributes >> appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when >> benevolence was lost, the proprieties appeared. >> >> I see this as a kind of Humian argument that trouble comes when we begin >> to >> rely so heavily on our classifications of past experience that we miss >> what >> is fresh in the present. When you define Quality you think you know it >> when >> you see it but you stop looking for what is new and unique in its present >> manifestation. In other words we focus more on our perceptions and >> memories >> that on immediate sensation. We are too busy classifying each moment into >> the categories we have already created to notice that the moment may be >> showing us a whole new category. >> >> >> [Kevin] >> Right. Subjective imaginings or objective manifestations. By the way, >> who are "they?" >> >> [Case] >> There are phenomenologist and Buddhists and solipsists in our midst who >> deny >> the existence of external reality. >> >> [Kevin] >> Right. And so our subjective imaginings and objective reality matter. >> But more importantly, what or how do they matter? Is the measure of >> their >> importance or worth or quality itself something subjective or objective? >> Condemnation and judgement is the dark side of subject/object >> metaphysics, >> imo. >> >> [Case] >> This is just my personal take on it but for me perception and memory are >> whole subjective matters. They are the product of my experience with >> Other. >> Other does not always conform to my expectations and this forces me to >> revise my inner models a lot. Objectivity comes about when I >> communication >> with others and we share our experiences. When we can agree upon the >> commonality of our mutual experiences that is objectivity. Thus >> objectivity >> is inter-subjectivity. >> >> What the MoQ adds is that change (DQ) and stasis (SQ) are fundamental to >> both the process of individual perception and to the formation of >> inter-subjective agreement. Pirsig for example does not say that SOM is >> not >> there, only that it is not fundamental. Both are shaped by the >> interactions >> of DQ and SQ. >> >> [Kevin] >> Speculative metaphysics? Is there any other kind? >> >> [Case] >> I don't find Taoism to be speculative and to the extent that the MoQ is >> in >> line with it I don't find it speculative either. That each individual is >> alone in a world of their own sensation and perception seems to me to be >> a >> matter of concrete fact. That the shadows on our customized cave walls >> wiggle and hold still is not speculative in my cave. Even in the ideal >> world >> of mathematics, Greek geometry dealt exclusively with shape and form and >> extension. These are static properties. Newton gave us laws of motion >> which >> help us define the dynamic properties or relationships changing over >> time. >> More recent advances in math and science teach us that "laws" are >> expressions of probability. Even deterministic, purely causal, laws can >> produce unpredictable results. >> >> For a metaphysics to rise to the level of common understanding it can not >> be >> airy and refined. It needs to speak to the common experience of most >> people. >> I think most people intuitively know that the world abounds with >> uncertainty. Our language is rich with metaphors describing this. Our >> societies are constructed to maximize order and reduce the impact of >> unpredictable change. The MoQ offers at least the vocabulary and >> principles >> to construct what Pirsig said would be "a metaphysics of randomness." >> >> It is disappointing to me that instead of taking this seriously he >> reached >> for teleology as a kind of Alka-Seltzer for the soul. In other words >> rather >> the face up to the uncertainty implied in an undefined path, he chose to >> call it Quality and treat it as a kind of Omega Point which comes from >> Teilhard de Chardin and is much abused by Wilber. To me this is a >> regression >> to the Aristotelian notion of purpose or final cause. This bit of >> absurdity >> should have been abandoned in the 1600's with Bacon and the advent of >> natural philosophy but as we can see some habits of thought die hard. >> >> >> >> >> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ >> > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
