From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 19:09:35 GMT
Ham, (Arlo and Erin mentioned)
Earlier in this thread Arlo made a wonderful jibe about people living
in glass houses, which seemed to pass unanswered.
I don't often engage with you because you are one of those starting
from your own non-MOQ position, with whom life is just too short to
argue. No offence but ...
Erin's response just tipped me off to your unwitting reference to me.
[Ham Quoted] [Erin quoting McKenna] believes the world is made of language"
[Ian reinforced] The world is made of information (full stop).
Then Ham followed with
"That kind of thinking, along with the notion that cybernetics will
use "artificial
intelligence' to replicate man and enhance the intellectual level, is
the New Age mindset that has infected the MoQ to the detriment of its
author. There is no need or logical justification for this nonsense."
Where do you get that claptrap from ?
Cybernetics has nothing whatsoever to with creating AI to replicate
man - except in Hollywood and comic books.
I choose not to argue with your essentialism, but I do not dismiss it
as "nonsense". Who are you to dismiss cybernetics as such ?
You need to get out of that glasshouse more, if you're going to
distinguish between the reality of physics and new age propaganda.
Ian
On 11/2/05, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike --
>
> You said:
>
>
> > It's the 4th level at which thoughts become MY
> > thoughts, YOUR thoughts. Subjectivity doesn't go
> > any deeper than that. Language and society do not,
> > of themselves, require it. Neither does your body.
> > Neither do the atoms composing your body.
>
> I don't really care what you do with Pirsig's "4th level"; it's a mystical
> metaphor, as far as I'm concerned. The important thing is that you
> recognize that subjectivity is proprietary to the individual self. That, I
> think, is a definitive breakthrough for the MoQ, and one which can at last
> facilitate a workable metaphysics.
>
> Subjectivity doesn't have to "go any deeper than that", nor do language and
> society, for that matter, as they are only the collective tools and
> expressions --
> the "objective results" -- of individual subjectivity. By their failure to
> accept subjectivity, several here have resorted to theories of language
> (semiotics) as the creator of existence.
>
> For example, on 10/18 Erin quoted McKenna:
>
> > "I don't believe the world is made of quarks or
> > electromagnetic waves, or stars, or planets, or any
> > of these things. I believe the world is
> > made of language"
> >
> > The world is made of information (full stop) -
> > I have little doubt.
>
> That kind of thinking, along with the notion that cybernetics will use
> "artificial
> intelligence' to replicate man and enhance the intellectual level, is the
> New Age mindset that has infected the MoQ to the detriment of its author.
> There is no need or logical justification for this nonsense.
>
> Compare Erin's semiotic reality with Donald Hoffman's personal credo, for
> which I'm indebted to Platt Holden:
>
> "I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists.
> Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the
> universe, but have always been, from the beginning, among the humbler
> contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being. The world
> of our daily experience-the world of tables, chairs, stars and people, with
> their attendant shapes, smells, feels and sounds-is a species-specific user
> interface to a realm far more complex, a realm whose essential character is
> conscious. ... If this be right, if consciousness is fundamental, then we
> should not be surprised that, despite centuries of effort by the most
> brilliant minds, there is as yet no physical theory of consciousness, no
> theory that explains how mindless matter and energy or fields could be, or
> cause, conscious experience."
> -- Hoffman,
> "Visual Intelligence"
>
> It isn't necessary to reject subjectivity in order to support the Quality
> concept; indeed, as you have so eloquently pointed out, it is foolhardy to
> do so: "the subject/object divide is fundamental to what we are."
>
> Now that you have an epistemology that makes sense, the challenge that
> remains is to develop a rationale for the subject/object divide -- that is,
> a metaphysical hypothesis to explain its undivided source (essence). Since
> the MoQ is predicated on Quality as the essence of reality, I anticipate
> that you or your colleagues will eventually see your way to postulating such
> a hypothesis, thereby completing the task abandoned by its author.
>
> 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
>
>
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 Nov 01 2005 - 20:30:20 GMT