David, Rich, Roger and Platt,
I've been wanting to reply to so much stuff here. But I've been reading
Northrop's The Meeting of East and West. What a great introduction to
Descartes, Locke, and Kant. I highly recommend it to anyone with a limited
background as myself! I can't wait to get into the Eastern stuff.
For anyone interested my "dualistic empiricism" idea is utterly different
than these philosophers' notion of dualism. Descartes and Locke were not
really empiricists and Kant was not a dualist. I thought "dualistic
empiricism" was a great catechism, but it is confusing given these old
interpretations! Anyway, my ideas are taking off too quickly to present
them here. I'm going to type my entire philosophy which I'm estimating will
be 25-35 pages when completed. It's the only way I can put everything
together.
But first some bones to pick....*grin*
David,
You wrote:
> Very complex atoms can be unstable enough to decay. In this sense they
are making choices about weather or not to decay. They're having
experiences on their own level and have been provided a chance to make a
choice by nature instead of us
I ask two things. First, where do you get this notion that atoms have
experiences? I'm not disagreeing, but curious where you picked this up.
Did Pirsig say this?
Second, by what mechanism does the choice of an atom enter into my
consciousness? What I'm getting at is that I don't think atom consciousness
solves the SO dilemma -- it complicates it by adding in more subjects. In
other words, if the atom experiences and I experience, how can the atom's
experience interact with mine without there being a structure linking us.
Again, reality remains dualistic -- experience and external structure.
>In the MOQ there are no claims about ultimate reality, its just a better
map. It's a better way to explain our perceptions, conceptions and place in
the world.
Hmmm. Maybe you and I are on the same side. We can tag team Roger and
Richi. You hold 'em down!
Seriously, are you asserting there is a "world" or "ultimate reality" that
is separate from that which is perceived (however unknowable that world
is)? If so, does one reconcile this with the MOQ which says there is only
one thing -- Quality.
Rich and Roger,
I'm happy to see you guys agreeing! But I have to jump in....
Are you both asserting the MOQ is an idealism? If so, I honestly can't get
around one thing. Suppose -- according to the idealism -- that there are
only experiences. By what mechanism do our experiences coincide with the
exact same 4 levels? You could say it is DQ. But then I would have to
reply that your answer makes DQ more than just experience. I can't
experience or directly enter into your stream of consciousness but DQ does!
DQ must be some external thing radiating into all of our experiences. I'm
not saying we can know the real nature of DQ, but I am asserting reality
must necessarily take on a dualistic flavour -- between experience and the
casality/structure underlying it.
Platt,
Awesome quote. But another damn person I must read....
>On behalf of those who, like me, see the Metaphysics of Quality supporting
the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, I offer the following from
the book, “Taking the Quantum Leap” by Fred Alan Wolf:
>“According to the tenets of the complementarity principle, there is no
reality until that reality is perceived.”
So, as above, I ask the same question. How can we discuss shared
experiences (the four levels) without there being something external to our
individual experiences that provides the link? How can there be such a
mechanism without there being *anything* outside of experience.
> Likewise, in our dualistic language, the word “perception” implies a
perceiver and a perceived. The implicit question left hanging when one uses
the word "perception” is “perception by whom of what?”
I agree that there is no perceiver apart from experience. The observer is
the observed. Hence, the dualism of Descartes and Locke is flawed. But ...
since there are both "my" observations and "your" observations there remains
redefined you and me! Specifically, there is my observed and your
observed. (This makes it impossible to avoid using some notion of "I" and
"you" when discussing "our" experiences.)
Although the self is not external (dual) to experience, doesn't the shared
nature of the patterns of experience imply another type of dualism? For
example, I can only infer, intuit or assume that you are also observing this
conversation. But, given this assumption, what mechanism links "my"
observation to "your" observation of this conversation.
I look forward to hearing from you guys. Enjoy the rest of your weekends!
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 - 16:03:09 BST