From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Mar 18 2005 - 16:27:24 GMT
Dear Platt --
> What's your explanation for how and why existence and consciousness came
> to be?
>
> Thanks.
> Platt
I knew that question was coming, although it's a little early in the game --
my present game strategy, at least -- to elaborate an ontology for creation
in this debate. Besides, my hypothesis is already outlined in my on-line
thesis.
I will say that all metaphysical theories that have survived the
intellectual challenge -- and that includes the metaphysics of Eastern
mysticism -- are founded on the principle of Oneness. As Scott has stated
regarding the MOQ, "rejection of subject and object is the starting point".
(I'm not sure that we can really reject "subjectivity", however.) The
challenge, it seems to me, is to define what is left when the dichotomy is
eliminated. THAT, I submit, is the essence we are all looking for. But
it's not the particular term chosen by a philosopher, but the underlying
CONCEPT that is needed for insight on the essential question.
Mr. Pirsig has rather arbitrarily tossed out Quality as the MOQ essence, on
the theory that it does not depend on either subject or object. I happen to
disagree with that theory, but because it isn't supported by a metaphysical
ontology it is incapable of a proper critique. Other philosophers have
posited Being, Love, Will, Harmony, Intelligence, and even Nothingness as
the "ground of existence", with similarly inadequate metaphysical
justification.
Scott has sided with the mystic Merrell-Wolff and cognitive scientist Donald
Hoffman in declaring his belief in a "conscious reality" -- certainly not in
conformance with MOQ. I quoted Hoffman's credo in my thesis: "I believe
that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. ...The world of our
daily experience-the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with their
attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds-is a species-specific user
interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is
conscious. ...If this be right, if consciousness is fundamental, then we
should not be surprised that, despite centuries of effort by the most
brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory of consciousness, no
theory that explains how mindless matter and energy or fields could be, or
cause, conscious experience."
But Scott's "ubiquitous" (absolute) Consciousness, like Quality or Value,
has to be defined in a special way to avoid the content normally suggested
by these terms. Moreover, to make the chosen term meaningful, it should be
capable of supporting a teleology for creation. In other words, there
should be not only a plausible explanation for creation but a "reason" for
it, as well. We don't have this in the MOQ. Which is why the debate goes
on interminably.
Thanks to you and Scott, my quest is beginning to bear fruit. If need be,
I'll fully expound my creation hypothesis in this forum. But I'd first like
to hear from Matt, Dan, David, Ian and any other "non-nihilists" concerning
the issue of Objectivism posed by Anton Thorn's essay. And I don't want my
hypothesis to influence what they have to say. (After all, their thoughts
may influence ME!)
Thanks for your response, and your patience, Platt.
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Mar 18 2005 - 16:30:50 GMT