[MD] Ham on Esthesia

ian glendinning psybertron at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 19:13:00 PDT 2006 

Case and all MoQ'ers ...

OK so this isn't Jupiter and 2010,

But here's a nice little YouTube item featuring
2001 & ZMM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZEMjbqiqBM

Simple but effective.
Ian



On 8/25/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Err Case, now you're losing me ...
>
> You've substituted "we" for intelligent life in several places, which
> is presumably just you being pragmatic from our current human
> perspective in the cosmos.
>
> Clearly the most intelligent lifeform in the cosmos has the highest
> quality potential to influence the cosmos, whether we are that
> lifeform or not, and whether we "assume" those powers or not. That's
> nature. That's MoQ. That's good. End of ?
>
> Ian
>
> On 8/24/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > Ian,
> >
> > All future history is affected by whatever happens NOW. You got that right.
> > Although if we aren't around to change it, Jupiter will just have to wait
> > for something else to come along.
> >
> > I haven't read Deutsch but what I have long been hoping to get around to a
> > conversation along the lines you raise. That is, regardless of the ultimate
> > nature of things, regardless of primary sources and illusions and the whole
> > of whatever. We are agents of change in the universe. We have assumed
> > Godlike powers and we assume more of them every day. If we believe we are
> > all connected and part of this glorious process of life perhaps we should
> > think about "our purpose" and how it relates to the stewardship of our
> > resources and extending life out into the rest of the universe.
> >
> > Life is the ultimate dynamic quality. God saw it and said that it is Good.
> > Is there any disagreement from anyone, anywhere on this point?
> >
> > Case
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:59 AM
> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> > Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia
> >
> > Case, as you say we are still over 99% agreeing ...
> >
> > One caution, where you sound over certain of what you say ...
> > [QUOTE] 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.[UNQUOTE]
> >
> > Apart from the intentional use of the word "care" (normal in MoQ
> > parlance), I would say, that's not actually true, it's just a matter
> > of perspective, scale and timescale..
> >
> > If all life ceased to exist ... Jupiter's future history would be one
> > of cosmological physics.
> > If life continues to exist and evolve ... Jupiter's history will be
> > different.
> > (I need only mention Arthur C Clarke's 2001 / 2010 by way of example surely
> > ?)
> >
> > Jupiter "cares" alright.
> >
> > Intelligent life is THE main driver of the future of the universe.
> > (Have you read David Deutsch's "Fabric of Reality" ?)
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On 8/23/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > > 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/
> > >
> > >
> > > 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/
> >
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list