Hey Erin,
I think your friend George and I would get along just fine....
BOEREE
He is right in a sense -- but it isn't really that important! Of course,
once we are talking about things, they have already become something other
than it was!
The only fully accurate response to all this is... silence! But how fun
would that be?
RICK:
I'm going to disagree here and propose that another 'fully accurate'
response is to recognize that our 'explanations' are not what they purport
to explain. It only with respect to this caveat that we can honestly
measure the value of various (and often competing) truths.
BOEREE:
We have to recognize that we are only "indicating" ultimate realities.
RICK:
Exactly.... But didn't he just say that this isn't really important?
BOEREE:
My perspective is that the whole universe is qualities (or, more precisely,
to satisfy Rick, the potentials for
qualities-as-we-actually-experience-them...).
RICK:
I wholeheartedly concur. And dare I say that not only am I satisfied, but
I've seldom heard it said better. Bravo sir.
BOEREE:
These qualities are "sampled" by sentient beings. They are actually far
more than we ever experience.
RICK:
Yes...
BOEREE:
This is in contrast to more materialistic perspectives, which like to say
that what we experience is LESS than what is "out there" -- atoms or
energies or waves, etc.
RICK:
I know exactly what he means... This is reminiscent of Pirsig's notion of
taking a handful of sand from the beach of awareness and calling it reality.
BOEREE:
Pirsig actually got some of his ideas from a philosopher named Northrup.
Northrup had a great concept about what the world is like before we start
interpreting it: the undifferentiated aesthetic matrix. It winds up being
quite similar to the idea of Buddha mind in yogacara Buddhism.
RICK:
AKA 'the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum'... Northrup's idea ultimately
forms the backbone for Pirsig's bridge between eastern and western
philosophy that climaxes at p.227 in ZMM.
BOEREE:
My background is phenomenological psychology, so, in terms of epistemology,
I much believe we have to go with our experiences. Even in physics, we're
really only applying mathematical models to the experiences we have in the
lab! It isn't a big jump from that to an ontology that says that our
experiences are perspectives on or "samples" of stuff that is simply larger,
richer experiences! So, my point of view is kind of like an idealism that
doesn't require the presence of minds -- realistic idealism, I guess I
should call it.
RICK:
Well, I'm not crazy about the label 'realistic idealism'... But the rest is
dead-on. As for the tree in the woods... some say it doesn't... some say it
does... Backing either view as being 'correct' requires begging the question
when one defines 'sound'. The value of this perspective is freedom it
provides in assuming alternate perspectives.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:47 BST