Re: MD MOQ in time and space

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Jul 04 2005 - 22:43:27 BST

  • Next message: platootje@netscape.net: "Re: MD MOQ in time and space"

    Hi Reinier --

    Sorry about the brain fart. I'd been in hot discussion in the middle of the
    night with an anarchist named Mark who has adopted Noam Chomsky as his
    favorite spokesman. I guess the name "Mark" was programmed into my fingers.

    > You shouldn't refer to space as nothingness'. Basically the dispute still
    stands.

    I hope to convince you otherwise. The notion that space is an attribute of
    physical reality that extends objects in three different dimensions relative
    to the observer is a construct of the human brain. From the perspective of
    an "absolute being" there is no space. There is no time either, since what
    we experience as the passing of time is our serialized view of a static
    "present". The existence of time and space as a cosmic system containing
    differentiated things and events is a rationalized precept resulting from
    our fragmented sensibility of otherness.

    > The only duality here is in our
    > "mode of apprehending" existence -- i.e., as a cognitive subject
    > observing a multiform object.

    > That sounds very SO.

    That's because it IS SO. Existence is the mode of sensibility in which
    proprietary awareness confronts objectified otherness. I think most
    scientists would support that concept, inasmuch as it's based on empirical
    evidence.

    > What I mean is this: In a completely value-free universe
    > we would have the state that you describe as absolute nothingness
    > or complete beingness. One single value means a split in that
    > universe. From unity we went to a situation were a value existed,
    > a label was placed. So it's the end of unity as we know it.
    > The only we to go back to that unity is to let go of the value.

    I fail to see what value has to do with anything but the qualities of finite
    sensibilia as apperceived by the observer. How do you explain value as a
    differentiator?

    > Value is nominated quality in a sense.
    > Unity in that sense is unnominated quality
    > (and nothing but unnominated quality).
    > You're right that my duality does not concern
    > the alphabet ...

    I'm afraid you've lost me here, Reinier. I'm unfamiliar with the term
    "unnominated quality" and don't recall Pirsig using it. You'll need a new
    metaphysical theory to articulate such a concept.

    I'll we waiting for the remainder of your response.

    Happy Independence Day!

    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 Jul 05 2005 - 00:14:12 BST