[Ham]
Have you considered the possibility that what is "after the fact" in the
finite perspective may be timeless in the absolute sense? That "before" and
"after" may define the mode of human experience rather than the attributes
of ultimate reality?
[Krimel}
Why yes Ham I for one have thought about it quite a bit. It does not hold up
for two reasons. The earliest and easiest is thermodynamics. It holds that
time is not reversible. The reason is that the overall rise in disorder over
times means that energy dissipated as heat can not be returned to its
previous states of order. A second reason would be quantum mechanics which
shows that both the future and the past are fundamentally unpredictable.
Since the exact position of every particle in the universe can never be
specified the future can be deterministic but not predictable. This same
logic applies to the past as well as to the future.
The fixed model of time that you work with is simply inadequate. Before and
after are not fixed. They are not fixed in the way we understand and work
with them every day, they are not fixed by the laws of physics, they are not
fixed by metaphysics.
This ultimate reality you mention; what makes it ultimate?
[Ham]
I suggest that the term "fitness" in the context of "betterness" (Pirsig's
Quality) is a synonym for Value. Consider this stanza from a 2500-year-old
poem by Lao-Tzu, as translated from the Chinese by Witter Bynner.
Realized in one man, fitness has its rise;
Realized in a family, fitness multiplies;
Realized in a village, fitness gathers weight;
Realized in a country, fitness becomes great;
Realized in a world, fitness fills the skies.
I recently quoted this in one of my website essays, replacing "fitness" with
"value" because it seemed to make more sense from an essentialist viewpoint.
[Krimel]
Nice poem, Ham! Where ever did you find it? It applies beautifully. Is there
more?
Notice something in the structure of the verses: It begins with one and then
a family and a village and a country and a world. It is kind of like a leaf
ending in a twig which feeds into a branch that forks off a limb that leads
to a trunk. This is a fractal structure where the workings of "fitness'
exhibit self similarity across scale.
[Ham]
The point I'd like to make is that value is a "give-and-take" property of
existential experience. By this I mean that value is what binds us to the
whole of reality. We take from value our being in the world, and (at the
same time) we give to value our experience of that being. In the first
instance, undifferentiated value gives rise to proprietary awareness; in the
second, awareness differentiates value, giving rise to beingness. This is a
reciprocal process by which being is made aware of the value that represents
its essential source.
[Krimel]
So value is like metaphysical superglue? How long do you need to give it
before it dries or would it be more like Velcro? So that that you can
reposition it if needed?
As we go about exchanging value in the world does the net value of the
universe increase or decrease during the process or does it remain fixed.
When we give back value does it undifferentiate in the process and in so
doing do we increase the total amount of undifferentiated value in the
universe? Is this conversion of undifferentiated value into being a
mechanical process like a jack-in-the-box? Does it follow some sort of rules
of fluid dynamics? Is the reciprocal process the essential source or does it
merely represent the essential source? Where exactly is this representation
manifest? In being?
[Ham]
Value is the actualized "essence" of man.
[Krimel]
Dude, where could I score some unactualized "essence"? I might be interested
in some buying I some weight.
[Ham]
So that, while it is true that value is the force that drives mankind, it is
also true that man (in hindsight at least) is the valuistic entity that
determines the course of history.
[Krimel]
If value remained unactualized wouldn't it still have a history? How can it
be driving mankind if mankind is creating it with superglue and Velcro? It
just feels like something in there is going to void the warranty.
But when you say that "... that man (in hindsight at least) is the valuistic
entity that determines the course of history." It sounds a lot like we just
make it up to suit our needs. I think I can buy that one.
[Ham]
Only in the timeless, unconditional sense are actualized events
"predetermined". Since the mode of human experience is temporal, and the
ultimate source is unconditional in every respect, man is the free agent and
decision-maker of this world.
[Krimel]
Who makes these rules for the timeless and unconditional? Why do you say the
mode of human existence is temporal? Isn't it spatial as well? Couldn't it
be more than that? Maybe there are dimensions we don't recognize. Or maybe
we recognize them but don't call them dimensions.
How do you know that the ultimate source is not spacio/temporal? How do you
know anything at all about it? It what sense is man free? Aren't we bound to
the surface of this planet? Don't the need for oxygen and water and food
constrain our freedom? Isn't the range of decisions we can make similarly
constrained. I mean if it is just of matter of sucking a bit more value out
of the undifferentiated how do you account for all the ads for products to
enhance male sexual performance?
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/
