Welcome Mr D Dunn,
You wrote:
>I'm not certain what is meant by "non-relativistic" but COMMON experience.
>All
>experience is relativistic, of course-- the General Theory of Relativity
>isn't
>being questioned here, is it?
I'm afraid , thats not what i ment at all.
I wrote in reply to Jaap saying that i was perhaps defending a
"relativistic"
point of view:
> > I'm afraid, thats not what i ment at all. Rather than defend a
>relativistic
> > point of view, i have been trying to defend the only worthwhile
> > non-relativistic point of view, in post after post, and that is the
>Reality
>of that which is
> > COMMON (or non-relativistic) to us.
So you see i was not the one to introduce this term "relativistic" here.
I regret it has caused so much confusion that the theory of relativity is
now
in danger. Since i am not keen to defend the use of this term, lets just
replace it with "personal" and the other term "non-relativistic" with
"empirical" and Common with "shared" and see what we get :
"I'm afraid , thats not what i ment at all. Rather than defend a personal
point of view , i have been trying to defend the only worthwhile
empirical point of view, in post after post, and that is the Reality of
that we share empirically."
I hope you do understand what i mean by the "Reality of that we share
empirically"
for if you insist that i spell it out, i will not do so that easily.
However,
i can give you two hints that are quite relevant. The first is that if i
were
sitting in some remote corner of the Universe, but had access to this forum,
i
would definitely NOT be posting here, only acting as a observer.The second
is
that i feel that the "Beast" is inadequately represented in this forum , and
so lets just say that i am representing the Beast's point of view.
>This may sound like I'm missing the point but
>consider this-- it is precisely because of Relativity of the Physical kind
>that
>we must take relativity of all kinds seriously. We are all separated from
>each
>other by space, at least. Niels Bohr made a decision that impacted
>metaphysics
>when he built upon relativity to create a new scientific ontology. He
>stipulated that in order to be a part of science, a thing must be
>observable in
>a scientific way. Particles that have "no location" must be experienced in
>order to acquire being, but they existed prior to that experience-- as
>nothing.
>Einstein once asked Bohr if he thought that the moon disappeared when he
>stopped
>looking at it. To be honest, Bohr would have had to reply that it did, but
>that
>this was not a relevant fact to scientific endeavor. It's unimportant to
>science what happens to the moon when it is not being observed. It's
>important
>to philosophers. The philosopher that came along and added clarity to this
>new
>ontology was Jean Paul Satre. Objects are what they are, scientifically,
>but
>they are also what they are not. Particles included, of course. The idea
>that
>existence precedes essence fits in very well with Pirsig's metaphysics, I
>believe. Existence, Quality-- the same? It's funny Pirsig never mentions
>Sartre...
If existence is Quality then what is essence in MOQ terms ? Please clarify.
Its not only unimportant to science what happens to the moon when it is not
being observed, but i feel it is also unimportant in the context of an
inquiry into morals, and i fail to see the relevance here, and if you see
the relevance, have not aptly demonstrated it.
The idea that existence precedes essence is a belief that is true, but
not the whole truth, because its counterbelief, that essence precedes
existence is also true.
I have read Existentialism only superficially , but the essential difference
i think with MOQ is in terms on the question of Morals.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
