[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[ian glendinning]

Hi Case,

I didn't suggest you were dismissing mysticism just handwaving
"whatever" mysticism. But clearly your not, you're endorsing it.

The "unkowable" core is just that - unknowable - and if we believe
that, it is kinda "whaetever" - any metaphor you like.

You confirm this "whatever" view of the unknowable core in this sentence ...
"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."
And of course in this you also confirm you're a pragmatist.

Your final sentence can't say quite what you mean can it ?
You cannot eschew doctrinal differences between those "isms" in
general can you, except in terms of their view of the mysterious core
- ie you seem to hold a pretty materialist / physicalist view at the
99.99% holistic / emergent levels ?

Ian

On 8/23/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
>
> 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/
>