From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Apr 08 2005 - 19:03:33 BST
Hi Ham,
On 7 Apr 2005 at 21:36, wrote:
msh says:
No need for a novel. Just explain this idea of psychic
continuation, the nature of Anthropocentric Essence, and its
relationship to your Designer/Creator. And try to do so without
referring to the existence of non-beings. Thanks.
ham:
I shall not refer to "the existence of non-beings", as I don't
believe in any. However, unless your concept of "beingness" can be
extended beyond the space/time boundaries of physical existence, it
will be difficult, if not impossible, to convey my ontology to you.
msh:
This is disappointing to hear. It saddens me to think that a concept
as important as the existence of the Creator of The Universe is
beyond my grasp. Nevertheless, let me emphasize that physical
existence, in my book, is not a requirement for being. Some sort of
empirical verification IS required however. I've experienced love,
and felt a sense of awe; I've seethed with anger and trembled with
fear; I've seen an empty box and a box with an apple in it, an
experience from which I can derive all of mathematics. So, if in
order to understand your ontology I must believe in something of
which I may have no direct or indirect experience, then I guess I'm
outta luck.
ham:
Where the MoQ fails, I think, is in establishing human consciousness
as the focal point of reality.... But this is a mute point because
the author evidently does not believe in an anthropocentric reality
and has defaulted instead to the empirical reality of scientism.
msh says:
Well the point may be moot, or even very quiet, but I feel the
empirical foundation of the MOQ makes it all the more useful in
explaining reality as I perceive it. But that's just me... or maybe
DMB, maybe even Platt, if he's had his Prozac.
<snip... much of which I'm incapable of understanding, but which
reminds me of the following quote from a guy who revolutionized the
fields of Semantics and Cognitive Science, and seems capable of
understanding some stuff...>
I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these,
using the only methods I know of--those condemned here as "science,"
"rationality," "logic," and so on. I therefore read the papers with
some hope that they would help me "transcend" these limitations, or
perhaps suggest an entirely different course. I'm afraid I was
disappointed. Admittedly, that may be my own limitation. Quite
regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on
the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand
is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total
word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand:
the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for
example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to
get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular
interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can
explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what
(partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be
able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the
most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know
how to proceed.
ham:
I certainly don't deny the value and importance of life. But are we
giving it full value if we don't know its meaning (or don't believe
it has any) in the cosmic sense?
msh says:
This is confusing. If we don't know life's cosmic meaning then
maybe there is none. In any case, how does believing something that
may not be true add value to our lives?
<snip some stuff I DO find interesting and of value, although it
doesn't really answer my question>
msh says:
Where did you ever get the idea that finding the "meaning of life"
is the purpose of Philosophy? Philosophy is about discovering and
learning to live with truth, and the truth may well be that there
is no meaning to life other than what we give it. You've apparently
decided that there is a cosmic meaning to life and have shaped your
"philosophy" to find it. This is very strange.
ham:
Funny. I think it's very strange for philosophy, which gives some
credence to an Intelligent Designer, to ignore the probability of an
intelligent teleology.
msh says:
I can't think of a single philosopher who's refuted Hume's
devastation of the Design Argument, so I don't know what you mean
when you say philosophy gives credence to the idea of an Intelligent
Designer. Can you point me to a philosopher who has clearly refuted
Hume? Maybe Sam can. If so, he'll be on me like a hound on june
bug...
msh before:
Also, you seem to believe that science is separate from metaphysics,
which is simply wrong. Science has its own metaphysical foundation
which doesn't allow the detection of right and wrong, good and bad.
What the MOQ does is EXPAND that foundation, bringing such value
judgements into the realm of empiricism.
ham:
Science may be influenced by metaphysics, but I disagree that
metaphysics is an extension of scientific methodology. These are two
distinct appreaches to knowledge, and I'm not aware of any
metaphysical theories that have the blessing of empirical validation.
msh:
Uh, the Metaphysics of Quality is just such a theory.
Anyway, who said metaphysics is an extension of scientific
methodology? I said science has its own metaphysical foundation.
There are dozens of books and papers discussing the Metaphysics of
Science, a subject made up of several assumptions so basic that they
cannot be explained in scientific terms. Here's the short list, from
a recent book by Craig Dilworth
1) The principle of the uniformity of nature
(i.e. nature behaves predictably)
2) The principle of substance
(i.e. substance exists perpetually)
3) The principle of causality
(i.e. change is caused)
The Metaphysics of Science also puts forth a number of assumptions
about the nature of truth, such as:
1)Truth must be stable, because science takes time to operate and we
verify by repetition of experience.
2)Truth must be separable into parts, because we can't understand
everything at once.
3)Truth must have objective existence so that different scientists
can independently apprehend it.
msh continued:
What is knowledge without comprehension? How does someone know
something they don't understand and can't explain? You are using
the word "know" in a highly idiosyncratic non-philosophical way. In
fact, you are using it the way religious people use it when they say
they know God exists. That reveals a lot about your philosophical
agenda.
ham:
How does one explain falling in love? How do we explain the rapture
of a sunset in the mountains.
msh says:
These things can be communicated through art. But this isn't even
necessary because everyone, in a normal life span, will experience
these things directly, to one degree or another.
ham:
How do we explain our faith in anything. Surely this is knowledge,
but it is all too often inexpicable to others.
msh:
As you know, I think faith is a substitute for knowledge.
ham:
What is my "philosophical agenda"? That's a political connotation
that I thought we had dispensed with months ago.
msh:
Yes. I'm sorry about that crack. It was unwarranted.
.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." 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 - 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 Apr 08 2005 - 19:08:59 BST