Hello everyone
Hi Walter
I think what we are discussing here is deeply complex, much more so than
meets the eye at first. And I really appreciate you asking this question. I
wanted to go deeper into it in my previous email but I wasn't sure if it
would be of interest to anyone.
>Walter:
>I don't believe time is a conceptual agreement, but even if it is, wouldn't
the
>problem still remain?
Glove:
The problem does not remain. When we use a word like "before" we are
speaking from a time point of view, I suppose you could say. But what Pirsig
is referring to is no longer a time point of view. If time does not exist
outside of our agreements that it exists, what is "it" that exists? This is
what quantum theory has uncovered, or rather has begun to uncover. And this
is the way the Metaphysics of Quality also seems to point. "It" could be
called Dynamic Quality, or non-space/imaginary time (Irving Stein). These
are not concepts as we understand concepts however. Dynamic Quality,
non-space/imaginary time refer to the "conceptual unknown".
>Walter:
>And furthermore, you state that the intellect level is
>not bounded by a linear sense of time, but is the conceptual agreement
>of time not part of this intellectual level?
Glove:
Yes and no. Conceptual agreements arise in the social level in the sense
that "before" these agreements arise, the intellect level conceives them in
their entirety. "Before" has only value in a conceptual agreement, social
level context
however. The intellect is not bound by social restrictions of time.
Walter defines Idealism:
2) Idealism
The view that only fundamental idea's form our reality.
Glove:
It would be so nice if things were so simple! Your definition says "The view
that only fundamental ideas (is this to be taken as ideas in themselves,
i.e., forms? do these fundamental ideas refer to an external reality
existing independent of observers? how do we assert this fundamental-ness?)
form (do Idealists believe reality forms itself?) our (here an external
reality is assumed.) reality."
I would say this definition contains certain ambiguities that seem to
confuse the issue. I am not a philosopher so I really don't know exactly
what an Idealist believes. I've always thought of Idealism as a belief in
ideals, or absolutes, and your definition would seem to confirm that notion
when you mention "fundamental idea's" which I would assume are synonomous
with ideals. Instead of "fundamental idea's form our reality" wouldn't it be
better put that fundamental ideas ARE reality? Better yet, I would do away
with the notion of fundamental (an SOM ideal) altogether and simply say
Quality, and then, Quality is reality. Now we're talking MOQ!
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST