From: jhmau (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Fri Jan 17 2003 - 19:18:44 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R"
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: MD Ironic Metaphysics
> Matt,
>
> > Matt:
> > Alright, I take the point that their might be a problem, possibly
> > unsolvable, in the processing of language. Being as I know nothing
about
> > cognitive science, what the current mood is in the discipline and the
> like,
> > I'm sure you'll understand my reticence on falling over to your side.
> I've
> > only read what you've said. To make a proper choice, I'd have to read a
> > bit more. Like you said, it took you years to see the problem. My only
> > hope is that, if this is a very problematical anomaly, then a genius
will
> > arise to reshape the discipline.
>
> Well, they didn't reshape this particular discipline, but geniuses (of a
> sort) have solved the problem: the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Shankara, Franklin
> Merrell-Wolff...
>
> > Matt:
> > Well, I find it disingenuous that you'd force pragmatists into the
> position
> > of having a metaphysics, whether they know it or not. That's the
clearest
> > case of begging the question. Rorty is a nominalist. The nominalist
> claim
> > is that words don't refer to anything essential in the world, they
simply
> > help us cope with the world. Rorty and the pragmatists aren't assuming
a
> > metaphysical materialism. They're trying to cope with the world.
> > ... [Pragmatists] just
> > want to see how different ways of viewing the world helps us cope with
it.
> > To say that our attempt to cope with the world is a metaphysical stance,
> > begs the question because as far as we can tell, we are not debating
about
> > how the world _really_ is, we are just trying to deal with it.
>
> I agree with all this (except I do not call myself a nominalist, as that
is
> taking one side of a metaphysical question -- do things have essences? --
> that I see as requiring the tetralemma (not yes, not no, not yes and no,
not
> neither yes nor no)). So what I am saying is that I coped with the world
> very much as Rorty does until I ran into a problem that my existing coping
> methods couldn't cope with. So I changed them. However, after changing
them
> I realized how my previous methods (which are still Rorty's) were based on
a
> certain view of life, the universe, and everything, and so am now able to
> see them as being a metaphysical stance. We all have such stances. Part of
> my way of coping is to call them metaphysical stances, though I recall
that
> we use the word 'metaphysics' differently. So what I am saying is that
> Rorty's coping methods (which is to say, what leads him to write what he
> writes) are based on a particular view of reality, one that I have found
> just as limiting as believing that the world was created 6000 years ago.
>
> >
> > Also, I don't see how Darwinism only makes sense from a materialist
> > perspective. As far as I can tell, whether you think all things are
atoms
> > in a void, ideas in our mind, or Quality has no bearing on how evolution
> > works. Everything still evolves, its just what's _really_ evolving
> > changes. Pragmatists want to cut out the middle man and say that
stuff's
> > evolving, but what that stuff _really_ is will never be solved or widely
> > agreed upon.
>
> Darwinism is the belief that evolution happens through chance and natural
> selection, meaning that no intelligence, or purpose, or other non-material
> factor is needed for evolution to happen, hence a materialist is required
to
> believe in it (or some similar theory). I am aware that it is logically
> possible for things to become more complex in form in this way. But I
think
> it very unlikely (as Pirsig notes with the chemist left out in the sun).
> What I deem to be impossible is that sentient forms could have evolved
from
> non-sentient forms.
>
> - Scott
Hi Scott, Matt, Mari, and All,
Scott, I followed what you said up to the point of stating: "What I deem to
be impossible is that sentient forms could have evolved from non-sentient
forms."
I agree with you and I would like to add something. Like Mari I am thinking
of the tower of Babel. I have tried to follow what Matt is saying, and I am
thinking of pragmatists and nominalists. Is the speech of a complex
individual like his fingerprint, unique? There are no absolutes and every
word is individualized? The tower of Babel was built by trial and error by
people who speak different languages. It was misshapen and fell or it was
beautiful. A leader called all the people together to build the tower. So
much has to be re-written.
Subject Object Metaphysics, describing how we know things, proposes that
existence be divided 'intentional existence' and 'existence outside the
mind' subject and object. Mind and will in a soul of an individual are
added to a sentient being. A problem occurs as true and false can be said
of the same thing. It truly exists but is falsely conceived, or it is truly
conceived, but does not exist outside the mind. For SOM Thing and One are
absolutes, and True and Good are relative absolutes. Much has been written
trying to make this metaphysics work.
The Metaphysics Of Quality according to Persig is that Quality is divided
into Dynamic and Static Quality. Quality is the only absolute. The theory
of How I know Quality is through undefined, instinctive experience, like how
a baby learns. How I know the pattern of static quality, or how dq becomes
a pattern is unclear? It is also unclear how the instinctive sense is
configured? Moral orders, instinctively sensed, add complexoty to an
individual? Static quality preserves an experienced Dynamic movement? Are
moral orders absolute?
"Impossible to evolve sentient from non-sentient forms." I agree, so what
can be added?
Quality Is Value. I suggest There are Three absolutes: Quality, Existence,
Purpose. There are three instincts, three brains to enable a movement from
non-sentient to sentient.
Sentient: a being with a reflexive awareness of self. The self is contained
in one absolute at a time. Non-sentient: a being with only positive, or
negative awareness, or with positive and negative awareness, but no
awareness from a third absolute.
Joe
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 19:12:19 GMT