From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 19:03:41 BST
Hello again, Reinier --
> Here's my wording of the first statement in your last post:
(I had said):
> "From the perspective of an "absolute being" there is no space."
(Your re-wording):
> I would say:
> In an non-dualistic reality there is no space.
No significant difference. The discrepancy here is your refusal to accept
physical reality; but one can't dismiss this experience just because we
don't believe it to be the TRUE reality. To avoid further confusion on this
matter, I suggest that we define everything that occupies space or occurs in
time "existence". (I've as much done the same in my thesis.) We can then
label what remains as "Not-other", Quality/Value, primary source, or
Essence, as you prefer.
(I said):
> "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."
You said:
> "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."
Again, no significant difference, since our "fragmented sensibility" is our
dualistic or "existential" view.
I said:
> I have difficulty understanding this [fragmentation of "other"]
> 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.
> The fact that I have detected a proton ...
> 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.
There is such a thing in Existence, Reinier. Quantum particles may well be
only an existential illusion, but somehow we must account for them. My
theory is that the design of the cosmos is "implanted" in the not-other
(self), along with proprietary sensibility, in such a way that knowledge is
universal. Otherwise, we would all be experiencing a different universe,
which would make no sense. (I've dealt with this concept in my section on
Nothingness, and made reference to it elsewhere in my thesis.)
I said:
> 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?
You replied:
> 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 no logical objection against it.
Well, then, I guess "buddha nature" is another option for defining the
not-other.
You 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.
>
> 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 senses, but just as real I think.
Indeed, the pain is even "more real" than the stove! The point I'm trying
to make is that pain is a sensation or feeling, whereas recognition of a
stove is a rationalized concept. Don't you admit to the distinction?
> [Pirsig] has not made this distinction,
> and his metaphyics suffers because of it.
You begin to see the light:
> 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.
Okay, we'll see how you work this out. I must warn you that several others
here have attempted to "rework" Pirsig's metaphysics with not much to show
for it but bitter disputes.
I asked:
> 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?
You replied:
> Therefore 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)
Just remember that time/space exists as a phenomenon in physical reality.
Hence, the ontology you come up with must include a plausible explanation of
how it got here.
May I make a prediction? After you think through the theory, construct your
dissertation, and publish it for all to scrutinize, you will come to the
conclusion that it won't work without a primary source -- a Creator or
essential cause. This is what's missing in Pirsigian metaphysics, and why
it is constantly being reconstructed, re-evaluated, and endlessly debated.
DQ would have been Pirsig's primary source, had he not feared that it was
too "supernatural" or religious for his nihilistc postmodern audience. His
solution was to construct a complex multi-level heirarchy of values, hoping
that we wouldn't notice the need for an absolute source.
I wrote:
> 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.
> YES, so far no dispute.
Good!
I continued:
> 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.
I predict that you eventually will.
I concluded:
> 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.
To which you replied:
> 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.
>
> I think you regard judging as a consious thing, while I think recognizing
= judging.
My answer remains:
> 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.
I think we're clear on our major difference. You're entering this new
non-material environment biased by an earlier belief system (which, I
suspect, is "anti-theist"). Sooner or later, you'll come to terms with your
philosophy. When you do, I hope that you won't be inclined to "throw the
babe out with the bathwater", as so many in this forum have done -- in my
opinion, to their detriment.
Thanks, again, for another opportunity.
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 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 19:06:12 BST