Everyone,
Thanks for receiving my ideas. For a while, I have felt like a bit of
a loner so this is great. As many of you know, I have intuitively
felt something missing with the MOQ. The Cartesian dualism post was
the first time I have been able to articulate myself the way I have
wanted. Strangely enough, it was written when I -- after a long day
-- had came back from a few drinks at the bar. I started writing and
everything came together. I found myself writing until after 6:30 AM!
I want to go over point-by-point and respond -- as well I can -- to
everyone. This makes it a long ride.
But I first have to be more clear on dualism. I used the term
"Cartesian TYPE" because I have never actually read Descartes. I
simply needed something to contrast against SO dualism and Descartes
came to mind so I went with it. This was a bit sloppy, but I think my
point was made. Descartes was a strong Catholic and -- I think --
believed in matter and a soul. My dualism is not just different from
SO but probably Descartes as well! Matter is replaced with external
structure and soul is replaced with experience.
A great catechism is "dualistic empiricism". Do not think of this as
"empirical dualism". Like Pirsig, I strongly want to emphasize that
experience/empiricism is primary. The duality only comes from
intellectual assumption of an external structure. But this assumption
does not mean the intellect is wrong. I'm over 99% certain that there
actually *is* a computer which I am using to type this message -- not
just the perception of a computer. I also feel -- and hope -- that
this external reality is connected to the experiences of others and
that people out there are reading this post! To me, therefore,
reality is fundamentally "dualistic."
This dualism brings together some big platypi -- the biggest perhaps
being the self. A scientist will never find -- with his tweezers -- a
self lodged somewhere in the brain. The self is nowhere in the body.
Doing some research I found a great example on the internet.
Swallow. No problems, right? Now spit in a cup and drink it! Most
people will not do this because the saliva they felt to be a part of
themselves becomes something external when they see it. This is true
for every particle in the body!
Study Eastern philosophy and the quest to discover the self gets
worse; it doesn't even look for it. It focusses only on experience.
And one can't experience the self! Since it can't be experienced --
it can't exit. Right? No way! With dualism East and West and the
self come together. The moment I start thinking about a reality that
is apart from my experiences, it is immediately intuited there is a
self. The self is sensitivity of this external reality. To each
person -- the self is no less than everything. *It is only because we
infer that there is more than everything that there is a self*!!
There is so much to write and I have a lot more to say about the
self. I feel that the self participates with reality through what
can best be called attention -- a la William James. James -- being a
psychologist -- completely missed the huge moral implications of
attention -- a la Krishnamurti. I want to discuss judgementalism,
William James' notion of recepts, inattention, being in the moment,
statically clinging to belief, the "editor" in our mind, and truth (I
have more good stuff).
Morality is a personal responsibility and attitude which starts with
the individual. That is why I'm very adamant about the self!
I now digress....
----------------------------------------------
I now will try my best to cover all your posts. This is going to take
some time. Please understand I see some great stuff but I feel it is
best use of my time to cover any disagreements. I hope this does not
come off as too argumentative and that the grammar is OK... Down to
the nitty gritty my friends!
-----To Roger,
1. You say that the MOQ "can explain and connect matter and mind by
defining them as different conceptualized forms of experience". As
you saying there is matter *out there* in time and space? If so,
explaining it as conceptualized *only* denies the link by denying one
side of it. But if there is time and space, this side can't can't be
ignored.
If you are saying there is no time and space but *only* perception of
it, I can't prove you wrong. But I can say that intuitively, you
should re-examine your position. How else, but by the consistency of
an external structure, could science work so well?
The link which you ask me to think about, is extremely difficult to
comprehend. Just as Pirsig's explanation of value -- I can only say
that I know that I am a sensitivity of reality. To go along
Descartes: I experience therefore I am! I don't know why and probably
can't know why. I'm at peace with this. It is almost reassuring that
there is an aspect of life that will remain a mystery.
2. On physics and biology you said "Biology does not violate physical
laws, it transcends and redefines them".
I can't see how biology is *fundamentally* different in a metaphysical
sense. Biology just seems to be a macrocosm of the physical
universe.
Without some fundamental difference, Pirsig could have just as easily
defined "The Apple Pie Level". (Laughing) Apple Pie evolved out of
apples, sugar, and flour. It tastes better and therefore is a higher
level than apples, sugar, and flour on their own.
(This question is raised by Platt and Magnus and I explain differently
below.)
3. The other levels and dynamic/static. Sorry... but I have to
continue! After reading all this please let me know of anything
outstanding...
------To John Ryan,
I have not read Kant but he is on my list. I think I agree with what
you are saying. "Any object relies on our mind totally." I could
reword it to say "knowledge of any object relies on inference from the
mind's experiences".
I only disagree in thinking "how does this contradict what I am
saying". I can't deny that to perceive reality, it must be
perceived. If think that your "pre-organic" and my "duality" are the
similar, but I get out of the level mess.
Your post reinforces the meaning behind the catechism: Dualistic
empiricism. Not empirical dualism!
------To Mary,
You say "How do you know that the glass is still there after you leave
the room. You don't, really."
I agree 100%. Dualis-TIC empiricism *laughing*.
You also examine "There is no structure apart from experience". I
would agree that any structure can't be known, but I would disagree
that this is not a reasonable hypothesis. Isn't it intuitive that
there is a glass to be perceived? Isn't it also intuitive that I'm
not just experiencing it but that there *is* time/space. Will you at
least concede this is very practical?
If there is no structure why are you communicating with me? Aren't
you assuming that I'll write back. How does this happen without a
structure connecting our experiences?
"In a Cartesian duality, there is no way to say that inorganic
patterns experience other inorganic patterns."
Hmmm. Can one hypothesize that gravity is sensitive to / aware of
electromagnetism? I don't follow...
"Ask a Cartesian dualist where the laws of nature came from."
I say that I positively experience the laws of nature. This macrocosm
can be reduced to simpler physical laws. Muscles, bones, brains and
tendons, are ultimately neurons, quarks, electrons. What are quarks
and electrons? They sometimes appear together as muscles, bones and
tendons *laughting*. Seriously, I don't do know why I experience or
am sensitive to reality. But I do and am. And it is
counter-intuitive to not think there is a structure apart from these
experiences.
I don't try to reduce things beyond experience because it is the only
tool I have. Pirsig really does no better. Do you have an answer to
why we experience?
---- Platt,
1. "SOM reality consists of matter and mind"
If so, then what the big gripes about SOM? If there is matter AND
mind this implies that mind (experience) can *not* be reduced to
matter. The problem with SOM is that it does try to reduce experience
to matter.
2. "Robert ignores quantum physics ... the assumption reality exists
independent of observation has been proven wrong."
I never said reality is independent. I just said reality is separate.
Do you believe in psychokenisis? You might think I'm crazy but I
certainly do! With nothing but my attention, I can move my finger!
Of course, you have to be a dualistic empiricist to assume there is
attention and a finger! Thanks for the additional perspective.
Quantum physics supports the dualistic empiricism viewpoint!
3. "Robert says ... If it feels good do it."
Big time oversimplification. I say that if one is sensitive to the
entire experience -- including knowledge -- then the one will do the
best one can: what one loves.
To make my point, I'll go extreme. Raping would probably "feel good".
I don't think that I would do it. Even if I were extremely
insensitive and tried not think about it, I would be sensitive to the
emotional devastation of another human being.
To get into this more, James' "recepts" comes in very handy.
Hope I am not intruding by being personal, but the following makes my
point. I you were a little more sensitive and not focussing *just* on
proving me wrong, you would have took time to write a less
confrontational post. We would not be feeling this animosity right
now!
Of course, now I'm being confrontational too! I'm no better, so don't
feel bad. See how this sucks!
5. What is my world view?
This was to be saved for later, but why not get into it now. I
believe in a universal truth. "We" are empty vessels to receive
reality. Remember, the "self" is not an experience so there is no
difference in quality between two selves Because there is one
structure, there is also no fundamental in what we experience.
Differences of come from different perspectives. I can see something
from far away and you see it from upclose.
That is why I believe that two people who sincerely open there minds
to each other will come closer in their perspectives. Truth is
received but individually we only receive parts of it. Suppose I like
jazz and you like R&B? Who is right? The answer comes from opening
our minds. If I can communicate and share my jazz experiences, and
you share your R&B experiences, and we both are sincere, I think we
would eventually agree on which we liked better. The *only* road
block is perspective. One person, for example, is sensitive to the
workings of a brain that has more hormones.
Socrates said "the best human being is all human beings together".
Awesome.
------ Magnus,
1.I hear what you are saying about biological quality / experiences.
I eat because it tastes good.
One can label this biological, but I think it is arbitrary. Food is
made of quarks, neutrons, electrons, and so is my tongue, brain and
nervous system. Ultimately, some quark appears in my brain and I like
it! I don't know why there is this experience, but here is a perfect
example of structure inferred from experience.
Again, East meets West. East knows intimately that food tastes good
and does not care why. West only wonders about the structure
associated with the experience. To get the whole picture, taste the
food AND study the structure behind it! Duality, my good friend!
--------
I hope this covers everyone.... Again, I don't know how this will be
received but I am very curious! I'm greatly appreciative of
everyone's input!!
If there is still skepticism I'll make a bet to anyone. Stay on the
list and I will catch you using "I", "me", or "my".
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:08 BST