[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Case]

[Case]
I love the comment:

"That video had more of an Atlas Shrugged dawn kinda feel. I'm not sure why
you would try to mix Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance with Space
Odyssey?"

Cuz, he wanted to put in something for everyone?


-----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 10:13 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham on Esthesia

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/
> >
>
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/