>Hi Robert Stillwell and Group
>Some thoughts on your recent post. I apologize in advance if you
take offense by my being brief and direct. I cannot predict the
degree of your "sensitivity" nor control how you will “feel”' about
what I say.
RS. Wow, is there a lot going on above! My feeling is no longer one
of confrontation but bafflement. I'll explain below why your words
seem confrontational and maby we can learn a bit of ourselves here as
well!
I sincerely think that you can predict someone's sesisitivity and you
can control how they will feel about what you say. We experience --
albeit from different perspsectives -- the same reality. Through
empathy -- imagining someone else's perspective -- we can anticipate.
The more open-minded and experienced we are, the better we can do
this! No one is perfect, but at least *try* to predict how I will
feel and I will probably appreciate it!
You often have taken a sentence very literally as opposed to context
written around it and then dismissed my ideas with quick answers. My
philosophy could very well be wrong. But it is a bit insulting to
refute it in this simple way. Its like you are reading
sentence-by-sentence and asking "OK, now what can I find wrong with
this sentence" without any regard to what could be right.
Please let me know how my reaction makes you feel! Understand that
I'm not trying to attack but trying to open some honest communication.
RS writes: "The self is nowhere in the body."
PH: A “self” can be identified by his “body” DNA.
You go into it without commenting what either of us meant as "body" or
"self". By DNA, do you mean the experience of DNA or DNA as an
object? Can you see why this is relevant to me? You have given me
nothing to go on.
"Self" is not an easily defined term. Taken in context, my "self" is
the collection of my experiences. Yes, one could examine my DNA and
even use this to predict my experiences. But the DNA is not the
experience it creates.
Your argument here seems refute me by simply redefining the terms. I
could very well be wrong but it is not this black and white. It would
be less frustrating if would teach me!
RS: "To each person -- the self is no less than everything."
PH: Agreed. Mine is the only world.
If you agree here, why don't you agree to the above? How can
"everything" be found just in the physical body?
RS: ”It is only because we infer that there is more than everything
that there is a self."
PH: "More than everything" is nonsensical. Is more than everything
“everything plus everything else?”
Yes!
Please take me in context. Yes, the term "more than everything" on
its own is nonsensical. But "everything" does not have to mean
"everything". If for example, a guy says "I lost everything in the
stock market" I would understand that he meant "everything" as every
financial asset.
Your reply makes it seem like there was no effort to understand what I
meant, but then you still label the argument as "nonsensical" or
"nonsense". Your words would be received better if you asked for
clarification. And don't take me litterally and say "please clarify
why your argument is such nonssense." *laughing*
RS: "I feel that the self participates with reality through what can
best be called attention."
PH: Agreed, except I would argue that attention creates reality
rather than participates with it.
If you explain why, I would be able to understand you better. I still
go by "participate" beacause there are aspects to reality outside my
control.
RS: "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 there is time/space.”
PH: I'm suspicious of using intuition to verify reality. For centuries
intuition said the world is flat, the sun goes around the earth and
the
stars are heavenly lights.
So you believe the Earth is round? I would better understand your
position if you could explain to me why you think the Earth is round
without any "intuitive" assumptions. (Perhaps all the pictures of
Earth have been doctored and there is a teleportation machine at one
end.)
And I thought you agreed the self was everything. But saying the
Earth is not flat aren't you intuiting that there is an object Earth
-- that there is more to everything than your experiences? Have you
actually seen the *entire* Earth. I eagerly wait for your thoughts as
I think this would really get to the heart of things.
RS: "If there is matter AND mind this implies the mind (experience)
cannot be reduced to matter. The problem with SOM is that it does
try to reduce experience to matter.”
PH: Not all who ascribe to SOM are materialists as you suggest.
Idealists try to reduce matter to mind. Both use SOM. Both
acknowledge that “mental" properties (mind) are different from
"physical" properties (matter). Both mind and matter are implicit in
SOM.
The key word is "reduce". By materialist I mean one who tries to
reduce mind to matter.
If a SOMer is not a materialist, then all Pirsig's complaints about
"objectivity" and SOM become irrelevant. To SOMer won't treat an
experience "objectively". Dusenberry's academic peers would have been
keenly interested in his experiences and would have incorporated his
experiences into their theories of the underlying structure to
experience. Perfect!
RS: "I never said reality is independent (of observation). I just said
reality is separate."
PH: Separate from what? Separate from the observing self? Is not
self real? I thought you were adamant about the reality of self. How
can reality be separate from reality of self?
Why can't two separate things both exist? My expereinces exist and I
assume -- due to all the reasons in my past post and more -- that a
structure underlying the experience exists. This answer is not
complete ... but I'd like to hear where you require more
clarification.
RS: "Do you believe in psychokenisis? ... With nothing but my
attention I can move my finger."
PH: Yes. I think attention is a key factor in metaphysics. When we
eventually come to agreement it will center on our mutual interest in
the mystery of attention which implies an underlying value structure.
To move your finger you have to want to move your finger as well as
focus your attention on it. “Want” implies a value.
Awesome.
RG: "Quantum physics supports the dualistic empiricism viewpoint.”
PH: No it doesn't. At least some interpretations are monistic. From
Erwin Schroedinger, one of the founders of quantum physics: "The
external world and internal awareness (self, mind, consciousness)
are one and the same thing." (parens added). You can't get dualism
from "one and the same thing."
Ok, but doesn't this view -- by trying to objectify reality --
contradict Pirsig as well?
Thanks for explaining more fully here. This time, I have something
more to think about.
Would you label Schroedinger an idealist then?
RS: "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."
PH: I have no idea what this means. In your rape example,
sensitivity" seems to mean trying to imagine how another human
being feels. In the statement above, "sensitivity" seems to mean
"follow your bliss." Perhaps you will elucidate on your "morality of
sensitivity" in future posts. I hope so.
This is very important, but I'm low on time here. If you've read
Jiddu Krishnamurti it very along those lines. Have you read him?
RS: "We would not be feeling this animosity right now."
PH: I "feel" no animosity. I judge your thoughts on their premises
and logical merits, not on how I "feel" about them. I assume you're a
nice guy with honest disagreements with the MoQ.
Ya, I'm OK too. Let's hug *laughing*.
Although your emotions (which are sensory perception) do not influence
your understanding of my words, don't you find your emotions
interesting? My philsophy is "personal" and I think we should try
not to ingore these things.
RS: " . . . there is no difference in quality between two selves."
PH: I gather you don't believe in different inherited talents.
Exactly. Talents come from the physical body, which is not the
self. If one person, is not good a baseball because of a bad
shoulder, that says nothing of his "self". Surgery could repair his
should, so it is not innate to his "self". I think all "inate"
differences can be explained this way. There is the aspect of
attention, which does confuse the issue but it will take me too long
to explain right now.
I hypothesize that there is an external reality and also "selves" that
are points of sensitivity of reality. That is the duality.".
RS: (Referring to dualism). "Will you at least concede this is very
practical?"
PH: By all means. We would not survive very long without dualism
because thought depends on it and human survival depends on
thought. Pirsig has no problem with dualism. As he said, you can't
do metaphysics without it. But here's the problem. Your dualism --
external structure/experience -- doesn't explain values. It doesn't
explain quality. It doesn't explain morality. Pirsig's duality --
Dynamic/static quality -- not only explains everything your duality
explains but morality besides. That's why I think it has great value.
(-:
I see the importance of getting outside of the metaphysical and into
the practical. I wanted to first get people online theoretically but
I am prepared to take this other route. I'm going to be very busy for
the next week, but I'll be back.
>>Thanks for providing much food for thought. I look forward to your
response.
I had fun writing this. Catch you later!
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