From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 09:15:38 BST
Hello Ham,
Here's my wording of the first statement in your last post:
>
>you said:
"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."
Nothing to change about this.
"From the perspective of an "absolute being" there is no space."
I would say:
In an non-dualistic reality 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"."
Again, nothing to change
"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."
I would say:
"The existence of time and space as a cosmic system containing differentiated things and events is a rationalized precept resulting from our dualistic view on reality."
>I follow your reasoning. But, again, I have difficulty understanding this
>as a "value" process. Certainly the label "proton" is not a value, nor is
>the fact that it is recognized as a proton and not as anything else. This
>is a logical assumption based on reason (rationality). Whatever "value" the
>proton may have for me (and it is minimal at best), the fact that I have
>detected a proton out there (a poor example, since I really can't) only
>means that I have distinguished the proton X from the not-X. In other
>words, I've delimited the proton from what it is not -- all other. This is
>the cerebral process I call "intellection", and it has nothing to do with my
>concept of "value". If you could accept my terminology for purposes of
>this discussion, it would minimize our differences.
I could accept them, but the core is (see my reply to Bo) I think in reality there is no such thing as an objective proton.
>> Yes, but if I can make an addition, do not automatically asume
>> that something has to be experienced by human beings to be
>> speaking of experience.
>
>I will allow that something can be experienced by a lesser creature than
>man. But it must be a sensient creature. How do you account for
>"experience" where there is no proprietary sensibility?
And that's the tricky consequence of my thinking, I must assume what you may call 'a buddha nature' in everything. I know this goes into everything we intuitively believe, but I see nog logical objection against it.
I said:
>Pirsig doesn't acknowledge physical attributes, and it that sense, pain is
>just a much real as the stove or the ass, just on a different level.
>
You replied:
>More than a "level" difference is implied here. I'll concede that the pain
>in my ass is as real (to me, at least) as the hot stove I sit on. However,
>the mental conception of a stove is quite a different experience that the
>feeling of pain.
Because for you the stove is an object and the pain is a result of neuro-transmitters? The stove is an object because you're eyes and hands tell you it is. The reality of the pain is brought to you by other sences, but just as real I think.
>Epistemology is the study of how knowledge is acquired -- how we "know" and
>become aware. What I meant was that Pirsig's analogy does not provide a
>useful definition or epistemological theory to account for experience.
>Sensibility to pleasure and pain, goodness and evil, quality and shabbiness
>is a valuistic judgment call. Recognition and differentiation of physical
>phenomena is a function of rationality. He has not made this distinction,
>and his metaphyics suffers because of it.
I see what you mean, and I think I agree, but I think his theory can be expanded in that direction, or rather, 'my' theory can apply MOQ in the area for which MOQ was written, and can follow the same reasoning throughout the areas that Pirsig did not describe.
>> Values are already weighed. But a value 'beautiful' is
>> much more weighed individually, while a value 'stone' is
>> weighed very long a ago in evolution, and incorporated
>> in other values that have evolved since then.
>
>What agency or sentient entity does the "valuing" in pre-historic evolution?
>How do you explain value where there is no cognizance or awareness of it?
>Likewise, how do you explain "time" and "space" where there is nothing to
>measure it?
Therefor I say time and space do not exist. As far as the pre-historic valueing is concerned, see my remarks about Buddha-nature (I know this might not be sufficient argumentation at this moment, but I have not yet given this a whole lot of thought. My gut feeling says there's no logical argument against it)
>
I wrote:
>> But you look at value as a distinct from a physical object,
>> hence still supporting SOM, while I believe there will not be
>> found a smallest, physical, dimensional particle. So as Pirsig
>> has stated: 'You can replace particle by value and all laws of
>> nature stay intact' (not a literal quote).
>> This is not just a linguistic issue. This means that matter=value!
>
You said:
>You are talking about the organization (teleology) of the cosmos that is
>presupposed by rational creatures. I don't subscribe to the concept that
>evolution occurs because inanimate particles or energy waves "value" each
>other, or the ultimate goal, to create the universe as we know it. First of
>all, the universe is the way it is BECAUSE of the way we "experience" it
>[see my long-winded opening section on Experience.]
YES, so far no dispute
>So, if value is implied
>here, it's the value of the observer (man) and not the value of insensible
>matter. Secondly, that the physical world is an ordered system designed for
>sensible life forms is a manifestation of a teleogical value --
>specifically, the value of its Designer (Essence).
I can see how you come to that conclusion, I just don't agree with it.
> Of course Pirsig rejects
>all such concepts in the MoQ. Accordingly, he is forced to make value an
>attribute of Nature -- a "no-no" in classical metaphysics.
Wether it's a forced decision or not, I think it's a right decision.
>
>> In this case the value is chair.
>> In other cases the values is pile of wood.
>> They're both true.
You say:
>The fact that what may be conceived as a pile of wood may also be conceived
>as a chair is true. But it does not make either premise, or your
>conclusion, a "value". The invalidity of this argument is not a matter of
>logic or linguistics. It's your concept of value that is faulty. I
>maintain that value must be experienced, hence requires an observing subject
>and an observed object, conditions which you'll only find in an SO reality.
The above may describe the core of the dispute we have. I see no option to make this dissapear without damaging my own theory in which I still believe.
About the statement:
>> If in a universe there's an 'A', but nowhere in that
>> universe at no time there's a 'not A' then people
>> will not be able to experience A.
>
We go on to discuss:
>> Well not much to explain about it. It's just simply true.
>> And it also predicts something: If you stop valueing
>> (which in my opinion is judging) something, it disappears.
>
>Well, I consider that a slight exaggeration. I'm usually able to judge but
>one thing at a time. Does this mean the rest of my environment "disappears"
>during my evaluation? I may momentarily lose sight of it, but I know it's
>there. If it were all to disappear, I would be regarded as having an
>hallucination, to say the least!
I think you regard judging as a consious thing, while I think recognizing = judging.
>I think we have to distinguish what we experience in our existential (SO)
>world from the ultimate reality that "admits to no other". That reality is
>the immutable Essence.
>
>Ponder on that thought, Reinier. Then let me know if you still find it
>unacceptable to your philosophical belief system.
I hope I've made clear which parts of your theory I still cannot except. However, I very much enjoy discussing it, it forces me to rethink my own thoughts. We may be very close. I can relate to Essence. I will certainly 'Ponder on all your thoughts'
>
>And thanks for a stimulating dialogue.
Likewise,
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 09:31:59 BST