From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 22:48:34 BST
Paul --
Somehow I get the feeling (low Quality?) that you are evading my
questions -- or, at least, the meaning of them. I also suspect that you are
aware of this.
For example, you did not directly answer this question:
> In that context [space/time reality], does material evolution occur
> independently and prior to our beliefs or not?
Paul:
> Your statement, "When we talk about truth and falsehood it is
> generally understood that..." is a good example of what I mean by "the
> consensus of belief." So you already know what it means.
Yes, I know what a consensus means. What I asked was why we need one
to form a personal belief system. Do YOU know what a "collective
consciousness" means?
Paul:
> Regarding an individual's awareness of his historico-temporal existence, I
> doubt any individual born and living outside of any cultural contact would
> have that awareness.
Again, you deliberately miss my point. One is aware of the concept of
linear time and can reason that such events as the Big Bang occurred
millions of years ago without having been there. It seems to me that either
you believe it happened, or you don't. To say that "experience which is not
valued is not experienced" is not to say that events that are not
experienced did not occur. That's semantic nonsense!
Paul:
> There is idiosyncrasy in one's beliefs but to develop your own truly
> personal belief system you would first have to develop your own personal
> language system. I guess you may argue that you are free to do that
> (although Wittgenstein would have disagreed).
Whether Wittgenstein agrees or not, the English language suffices for me to
explain my belief system, and I don't need any language to formulate it.
You seem to be arguing for a "semiotic" universe rather than one founded on
Quality. What I hear you saying is that reality is symbolic, hence has
neither substance, nor sentience, nor value. I don't think MoQ's author
would approve of this brand of nihilism, and I don't think you do either.
Paul:
> Instead of an innate function of some "organ" called mind, one may
> say that reason is just an acquired and/or learned skill of using
> conventional symbols within a set of rules to predict and help control
one's
> experience.
Mind, as I'm sure you know, is not an "organ"; it is the cognizant locus of
the cerebro-nervous system (its biological instrument). Without individual
consciousness you would have no experience, let alone a "consensus" to
formulate rules or language.
Paul:
> You don't need a consensus or an authority to have a belief but
nevertheless
> most of your beliefs are "common sense," which is mainly a mixture of
> consensus and authority. Or are you going to tell me that you reasoned it
> all out for yourself?
Yes, I reasoned my philosophy out for myself, although influenced of course
by a variety of thinkers who had the same objective. Does that surprise
you?
Paul previously:
> In the sense that "states of events" are the current highest quality
> conception of things then I would agree that "ideas formed
> collectively at any time determine the state of events at any time."
Paul recently:
> "In my world of empirical reality, propositions are either true or false."
> A simple statement. Let me ask a simple question -- what makes your
> propositions true or false?
Fair enough. To the extent that it can be verified by scientific proof, a
proposition is true for the physical world. This applies to what we would
call "facts". Propositions involving absolutes are incapable of human
verification. However, some assertions can be analyzed as logical premises,
in which case the logic is a test of their validity. My Creation hypothesis
falls into a different category, in that it (necessarily) refers to
absolutes which cannot be proved either true or false.
Let me try something new here, Paul -- simplicity. I'm really a very simple
person who is impressed by great ideas expressed simply. We are all
literate MD participants, but we all tend to get carried away by specious
terms that fail to communicate. Simple answers are refreshing because they
can inform with a minimum of effort on the readers' part.
In simple terms, then, precisely what is your reality? Is it the reality of
scientific materialism, or the reality of Value as proposed by Mr. Pirsig?
(And please don't tell me that they are the same.)
I look forward to your simple (but direct) reply.
Thanks and regards,
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 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 22:49:12 BST