Tue, 13 Oct 1998 Keith A. Gillette wrote:
snip....
> At 8:46 PM +0000 10/13/98, Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
> >MAGGIE HETTINGER wrote:
> >> I found something interesting relating to DQ within the chaotic-inorganic
> >> area. "Standard" physics says that time is an illusion. If this is
> >> true, there is no MoQ, because MoQ is all about evolution, about
> >> differences caused by value choices over time.
> >> The assumption that "time is an illusion" seems to be an article of
> >> faith among scientists, even though the lay world has yet to comprehend the
> >> concept. The theory that steps past this assumption is chaos theory.
...snip......
> I'm hoping you'll expand more on your view of space-time in the Metaphysics
> of Quality. I can almost see the picture where this makes sense, but I keep
> "reverting" to conventional thinking.
>
> KANT'S SPACE-TIME AS AN IDEALISTIC PREREQUISITE
>
> As you outlined in your response to Maggie above, Kant sees space and time
> as "prerequisites". In *Critique of Pure Reason*, he asks what what is
> necessary for someone to have an experience. He demonstrates that time and
> space are necessary prerequisites. My way of understanding this is to
> realize that without space and time, there would be no field on which sense
> impressions could present themselves to a subject's consciousness.
>
> While you seem to think Kant believes time and space are objectively real,
> I don't know that Kant would disagree with your characterization of
> space-time as an intellectual pattern of value. The idealist interpretation
> of his philosophy agrees that space-time is merely a construct of the mind.
> Just because space and time are necessary for experience doesn't mean that
> space and time are objective entities. The noumenon doesn't need to exist
> in space or time, but for us to know the phenomenon, we must subjectively
> experience it in the field of space and time. [Excuse the subject-object
> terminology there, that's something along what Kant might say, if I'm
> reading him correctly. I'm hoping everyone will substitute the appropriate
> inorganic or intellectual pattern of value where appropriate.]
>
> In any case, only wanted to say that I don't know that Kant's view of
> space-time is so different than yours ...
Hi Keith and group.
You probably know a lot more about Kant than I do and you are
certainly right about his time concept not being "objective". Along
with space and causation he called time "a perceptional form"
(directly translated from my Norwegian philosophy book) and these
forms were neither subjective nor objective, so it may look as if
Kant was a quality thinker before Pirsig (like Donny claims), but not
quite.....as I'll try to demonstrate. You wrote:
> In *Critique of Pure Reason*, he asks what what is
> necessary for someone to have an experience. He demonstrates that time and
> space are necessary prerequisites. My way of understanding this is to
> realize that without space and time, there would be no field on which sense
> impressions could present themselves to a subject's consciousness.
Yes, Kantian experience - which I take to be equal to awareness - is
dependent upon the time/space/causation (TSC) framework that is 100%
true. Yes, TSC IS experience in the SOM (mind) sense, but MOQ's claim
is that experience=value and that shifts the ground totally. If you
have followed my SOTAQI idea and drop the Intellect=mind (-as-
different-from-matter) idea and equalize Q-Intellect with
subject-object thinking (awareness of self as subject (different from
objects [other]) then time, space and causation can be seen as the
first SO ideas that arose intricately interwoven with language and
became the cornerstones upon which the intellectual edifice rose
......to the height of a skyscraper; it became the whole of reality:
A METAPHYSICS!!!!.
This is in SOM-lingo called "ability to think", "awareness",
"sentience" or "consciousness", all with a ring of absolute to them
....knowledge of good and evil.... in religious terms", but the
Q-metaphysics takes it down a notch and tucks it in under itself. As
the top static level admittedly, but subservient to the overall
Quality system. .
Sorry, I got sidetracked it was time we were discussing and as shown
I place it as the arch Intellectual value along with space and
causation. This is of course not what Maggie had in mind when she
disproves science's concept of time as illusion by reference
to evolution, but - again - in the MOQ time is no VALUE until
language - the "carbon" of society which DQ rode into Intellect. If
there was a time and a space into which the Inorganic universe
"expanded" is not significant.
There was much more in your piece that was worth building upon, but
I'll have to limit myself.
Have a nice time in Europe!
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST