From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 04:59:18 BST
[Ham to David]
> I have two questions concerning your conclusion.
> 1. How can you be so certain that reality is limited to your finite
> experience and human reasoning?
[Case butts in]
The whole idea is that Quality is undefined. This is not an abstract
concept. We are separated from "reality" by time and space. Our
understanding of reality is necessarily metaphorical. Whether or not there
there is a reality beyond "the world as if" we have no way of knowing.
Uncertainty is more than a metaphysical speed bump. It is all four lanes.
[Ham]
> 2. Since you obviously did not bring yourself into being, how to you
> account
> for your existence? If this existence and your experience of it is
> simply
> a coincidence of Nature, where do you suppose Nature came from?
[Case]
"I" seem to be the continuation of a complicated chain of reactions among
particals of stardust powered by sun light. "I" have been going on for
millions of years in this place. I hope to have been able to pass it on.
Stewardship of that chain is finally a place were the term purpose starts to
make sense but that's just the chemicals talking.
[Ham]
> David, it's easy to take physical reality for granted and explain it in
> terms of scientific laws and theories. But, as I told Rebecca yesterday,
> even the Big Bang theory presupposes a combustible source. Theories about
> the origin of the universe essentially ceased when the positivists took
> over
> in the Renaissance. You wouldn't be participating in this forum if you
> weren't looking for better answers.
[Case]
You could take a rock for granite but never reality for granted. It has
taken us 12,000 years of recorded history to develop this explaination. The
first 11,000 seemed kinda hard. I don't think taking reality for granted
play a big role.
The Big Bang presupposes nothing. Literally, Nothing.
History reveals a process in which the questions of philosophy have become
the questions of science. At that point, philosophy has very little to
contribute. Since the Renaissance and in part because of it, the best
philosophers addressing those captured questions have been scientists.
[David]
>> It's randomness first that creates subjectiveness,
>> which lets us experience all these things,
>> which leads us to live our lives the way we do,
>> which might summon the illusion of purpose.
[Ham]
> So, for you, randomness was the creative force behind creation and the
> evolution of biological life. I find it amazing that one could even
> describe the primary source as randomness or chaos. Even Science shows
> more
> respect for the universe than that.
[Case]
The battle between Chaos and Order is an ancient dualism. It features in
ancient Greek, Chinese, and Assyrian thinking. What the MoQ shows is that
they are among the first things we notice flowing out of the undefined. They
are the first hint of an outline emerging from the fog. Chaos theory
resolves it further by showing that Order is an improbably static form of
Chaos. They are in fact the same.
[David]
>> But I am saying that because there happens to be
>> love and pain, more or less randomly, we still
>> happen to be here. Not the other way around,
>> that we are here to experience love. I heard
>> somewhere that "falling in love isn't part of a plan".
>> And that's true. You can't control it, it controls you.
[Ham]
> Do you think the fact that you can't "control them" negates the "purpose"
> of
> these emotional values?
[Case]
I think it is fair to talk about structure and function but "purpose"
carries a lot of extra baggage. One can see the dualism of many emotional
states: Love/Hate Pleasure/Pain. They function to keep the chemicals
reacting; but unless you are carrying something in that bag I missed I think
it best to check it at the curb.
[David]
>> That's why I believe in the MOQ to a certain extend. But I'm thinking
>> that it's not the ultimate source for this world, but rather just a
>> good explanation for subjectiveness.
>>
>> It's hard to argue against details if our basic believes
>> are totally different. Just one question that comes to
>> mind is this: If we were "designed", by whom or what
>> have we been designed? And by whom or what has
>> this designing force been designed? [insert recursive loop
>> here]
[Ham]
> You don't need a "recursive loop". You just have to widen your horizons
> sufficiently to realize that you and your reality do not come from
> happenstance. Whether you recognize a design or not, many do; and they
> accept the principle of a primary, uncreated source (much like DQ) which
> holds the potential for dividing reality into subjective and objective
> aspects. You and I are the "actuality" of this potential. I see our
> purpose
> in the DM as an attempt to define the metaphysics behind our actuality.
[Case]
I think you fail to see what a powerful idea Chaos/Quality is. The MoQ
provides a straitforward way seeing how order and chaos are related at their
source. It shows that dynamic and static forces are at work in both the
public and the private aspects of our experience.What you are calling
design, Douglas Adams would call a state of finite improbability. Having the
unknown at the the very center of your ontological cosmology is terrifying.
Most would rather believe anything else. Religious systems function to help
us deal with the terror. Buddah said "Free yourself of desire." Jesus said
to "Thy will be done." Same differance.
Case
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 Sep 29 2005 - 06:37:28 BST