[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Case]

Ian,

I eschew the isms because off the top of my head I can't think of what the
doctrinal differences are. Basically what I said a while back is that the
planet Jupiter does not care what we think about it and would be unchanged
if all life ceased to exist.

We can not "know" the "essence" of the planet Jupiter but whatever we think
about it, it is sitting out there waiting to correct our errors.

That life emerges from the conditions that exist in this particular space
and time seem obvious enough to me. Speculating on supernatural agencies
great or small that influence this, strikes me as a vestige of the idea that
we are God's chosen, placed by him at the center of the universe as part of
his master plan.

The fact that the realm of the unknowable has been reduced to less than
.001% is a testimony to the abandonment of idealism, rationalism, theism,
mysticism and whatever. I respect those isms and understand the impulse
towards them, I sometimes privately resort to them but I don't take them be
anything more than metaphysical night lights. I don't expect private
revelations to have much significance beyond my own skin if they can not be
ordered and communicated. And I look to the material worlds to correct what
ever errors pop up in my conceptions. My ideas are about something.

One of the ideas I was trying to advance was that it is not just at the
quantum level that things break apart. Things happen in the NOW. NOW is that
instant when all probability is at 100%. By our nature we are never there
consciously. We never experience now because it is gone by the time we
figure it out. We exist as Dan says in the illusion of our own making. It is
our nature to perceive the world and organize is into internal
representations. These representations are never in the NOW they are always
about what has happen or what will happen.

I believe for example that the only quarrel I had with Dan was over whether
or not we are constructing representations OF something. I may indeed have
misunderstood him but I took his meaning to be that Jupiter would disappear
if no one is around to see it. That is, there is nothing outside of our
representations. From an evolution of consciousness point of view this seems
like Piaget's preoperational stage where emerging young consciousnesses
believe that if they close their eyes, you can't see them.

Yes, I get the idea the "I" does not exist as an isolated entity but
language and conditioning make it hard to speak without reference to SOM.
(Case waves his hand at "whatever")

With regard to metaphor, I would say that this is what we do best. We see
similarity in dissimilar things. (We also see dissimilarity in similar
things). Metaphors are best served in herds or flocks or gaggles. The more
ways we have of understanding things the greater our understanding is. These
various internal representations we construct bend and flow and merge and
separate. Problems arise when they calcify.

Case



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:18 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia

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/
>
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/