[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Case]

Ian,

I agree 99.99% with what you say below. It is that .001% or more
appropriately: 1 to the -43 % (a unit of Planck time) that may even in
principle be unknowable.

I seem to have given to impression that I dismiss mysticism. I do not. But
neither do I dismiss theism or solipsism for that matter. Even Russell
acknowledges that they may hold the final answer. But where the rubber meets
the road I am interested in understanding the relationships that I as a
holon can grapple with and communicate about to other holons. Whatever
dynamic quality exists below the quantum level is static enough at this
holistic level to give us this world that we see and that is good enough for
me.

As Lao Tzu puts it:

"All things are microcosms of the Tao; 
the world a microcosmic universe, 
the nation a microcosm of the world, 
the village a microcosmic nation; 
the family a village in microcosmic view, 
and the body a microcosm of one's own family; 
from single cell to galaxy."

Although I accept it on faith, I eschew doctrinal differences among
physicalists, materialists, positivists and realists. Just don't call me
late for dinner.

Case



[Ian]
Gav says to Ham, (Case & Dan mentioned), after first agreeing to
seeing a strong parallel between Ham's essentialism and the MoQ - like
so many of us have expressed too,

> i have to pull you up here ham. pirsig is very clear
> that the 'objective otherness' is ontologically post
> the immediate non-dual experience of quality.

Agreed. So that still leaves that frustrating core that we dance aroud
endlessly - that mystical core of quality.

Case got short shrift from Dan for appearing to dismiss any "whatever"
style of mysticality, and not surprsingly this particular debate
constantly leads to (binary) arguments about alternative mysticisms,
like theism. Let's not go there again. I agreed with Dan's "wise
words" because that core of mystery remains crucial.

Like Case I have a 99.99% physicalist (he would say materialist) view
of reality. (Some people dismiss physical emergence of consciousness
because they are conceptually ignornant of emergence, and resort to
pejorative rhetoric like "acolytes" rather than arguments, to refer to
anyone that does get it.) However,

The core, that .01% remains mysterious, never to be observed as a
distinct ontological object. (and all the ontological objects in the
other 99.99% are emergent conventions - SPV's - explained well by MoQ
and physics - but conventions none-the-less).

I think the reason most of us are here is because we like Bob's
dynamic quality metaphor for that mystical core. Whatever variation we
have on that metaphor, it's aontic - pre-ontological - without
ontology.

Ian
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/