From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Sep 24 2005 - 01:35:29 BST
Hi Mark --
I said:
> An object can be a ball, a stove, a molecule, a tree, a body, a star.
You replied:
> Well that's why I prefer pattern, as you would be hard pushed
> to say what the common thingness of these examples is.
Not at all. An object is a something that exists in time and space. Its
commality with other objects is perceived as that mode of being. (I also
use the metaphysical term "existents" for things or objects to distinguish
them from "uncreated" entities or values such as Essence or Quality; but it
isn't necessary in our common understanding of reality.)
> Things is OK as far as it goes, but a pattern like the use
> of money, or patterns of value, are non-thing-like
> regularities and cause pushing/pulling structures that
> can be covered by saying pattern.
Monetary transactions, if that's what you mean, are better described as
"events" and also occur in space/time. Personally, I can't envision an
object as a pattern, even though it may consist of swirling microcosmic
quanta, and I doubt that you can either. I prefer to restrict "patterns" to
its conventional usage, as in "patterns of behavior", for example.
> See we can give stuff an identity as a pattern without it
> necessarily being a thing. That's the advantage of pattern
> over thing, it is broader. Science identifies all kinds of
> patterns that are hard to call things. Things is a concept
> that belongs mainly to macro-molecular structrues/patterns
> as per commonsense, i.e stuff you can pick up.
> Is a sun a thing? Is an ocean a thing?
Inasmuch as I live and function in a macro-world, I deal with things and
events in a more practical way. Hence, to me the sun is a thing, an ocean
is a thing, a building is a thing. Farming, banking, vacationing, and
teaching are events. Would you call a baseball or a pencil a pattern? Do
you even think of them as patterns?
> Sounds like your stuck with Newtonian mechanics.
Newton's principles, like mathematics and logic, are fairly reliable and
useful in our relational world. What do you have against them?
> How do you know what it is like to be a rock?
Now there you have me! My life as a rock...hmmmn. I can't think, hear,
see, feel, walk or talk, so I'd probably spend my time sleeping.
> Too dogmatic. I think science is much more about
> process these days and this is about describing
> behaviour and saying what drives these behaviours
> is unknown, the talk is of propensities and tendencies
> and much less about laws.
Analyzing processes and uncovering the laws of nature is the domain of
Science. Exploring reality -- its essence, origin, and meaning as seen from
man's perspective -- is what philosophy is about. I am attempting to define
awareness, not describing behavior. These are two completely different
things, a fact which seems to get lost in the MoQ's bizarre notion of
multi-level experience.
I had previously said:
> Any happening has a cause.
You replied:
> No there is more disorder and creativity than order.
What does that mean? Do you see the world as chaotic?
I said:
> We are "impacted" (stimulated) incrementally by the
> primary source (Essence), and convert this sensory
> data into particular things.
You replied:
> Well all the little patterns makeup a big one or vice versa
Again, am I supposed to make sense of that?
I also asked:
> Do you see [my] explanation as contradictory to Pirsig's E=R principle?
You answered:
> Well to get the MOQ you have to see what a rock, a ball,
> a bank, a nation, have in common as patterns and that it
> would be odd to call these objects or things.
Most people would call them objects, and would think you odd for insisting
they were patterns.
> I am only aware of human experience, the state of
> awareness at others levels is hard to imagine, but the
> reality of sq & dq at all levels can be envisaged.
> i.e. patterns and their emergence.
I am only aware of human experience also. Consequently, the rest of your
statement makes no sense to me.
> I am not sure either about Pirsig on transcendence.
> That's what I wish to get a debate going on. Anyone
> else have a view? I am suggesting the MOQ
> cannot make sense without it.
I would suggest that we try to make more sense of the existing world before
flying off to transcendental realms. From what I've seen of the MoQ's
version of reality, most of it is incomprehensible.
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 : Sat Sep 24 2005 - 01:53:46 BST