[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Joseph Maurer]

On Sunday 03 December 2006 3:20 PM Case writes to Joe:

Joe,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply!


You're welcome! Thanks for your kind greeting!


Case,

[Case]

I agree with your quote below especially: "... any belief in intelligence or
consciousness belonging to beings greater in scale than man, is in danger of
being regarded as superstition."

I am highly suspicious of superstition. As for the view that there maybe
internal laws of psychology that render man himself predictable I suggest
these are two different things. We could find such laws but they are
unlikely to render man predictable.


[Joe]

I am unsure how to respond to you. I asked my daughter about Norrath and she 
said it came from Everquest, sometimes known as Everkrak. I don't know that 
I speak the language properly since I am too old (74). Anyway! IMO 
Proprietary Awareness does not occur in a vacuum. "PA is between TITs" does 
not suggest to me Everkrak.


[snip straight to Kant]

[Joe]
Kant also used a body/soul split, but claimed the ding an sich was
unknowable because the mind had its own structure. He avoided abstraction,
and the world of ideas and opened the door for direct experience. He still
falls under the S= mind/will, O= body Metaphysics, with his emphasis on the
categorical imperative.

[Case]
Just to clarify. Kant's says that we know TITs though the structure of our
minds. I think in identifying the a priori's he was attempting to specify
the structure of our minds in much the way the Freud and Jung did later. But
I think the neuropsych crowd is doing a much more thorough job.


[Joe]
IMO I have no mind, only experience.

[Joe]
IMO Pirsig's genius was in seeing that Kant was on the right track with
structure, but that he wasn't ruthless enough in destroying a body/soul
split. Kant unnecessarily kept a body/soul split. She is only one organism!
All is experience. She is not divided. The Categorical Imperative becomes
evolutionary dimensions of existence, morality.

[Case]
Kant continued to talk about souls and stuff because he was a theist and
lived in a land of theists. While I don't hold it against him I don't take
it seriously either. I also do not see how Kant's ethics is related very
well to his metaphysics in the Critique. The whole duty and categorical
imperative are interesting but not satisfying. Pirsig called them ugly. I
can buy that. The other major theory of ethic comes from Bentham and Mill
and is based on the greatest happiness principle. We are motivated by
pleasure and pain. I rather like that one warts and all.


[Joe] If he is just a gossip, no reason to take him seriously. I hesitate 
describing motivations before MOQ.


[Joe]
I go back in history to see how others view existence. Esoteric literature
describes a law of seven. IMO Existence along with everything else conforms
to that law. The duality of a body/soul split with real existence and
intentional existence SOM is incomplete and misleading. I looked back on my
studies of esoteric literature of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicol, and Collins
to see how others have viewed existence, and cobble existence and a law of
seven together.

[Case]
I don't know about this law of seven of which you speak. I am unfamiliar,
intentionally so, with they theosophical crowd. I tend to think they have
earned their obscurity.


[Joe]

I agree that PA between TITTs is obscure. That does not say there are no 
results.


[Joe]
IMO There are dimensions in existence, a moral order. It seems that time is
necessary for evolution to produce an individual in a new order of
existence. Morality is the necessity that when a new order evolves from the
old it cannot destroy the old and continue to exist, there are too many
interconnected parts. Individuals can destroy what they want to, but not
morally. Destruction of the environment is morally wrong. It is not too 
clever either. Individuals belong to an order, and it is hard to distinguish
which order because they are so complex. One foot here, a hand there, but
the center of gravity places them in one of the seven orders. If one order
of existence collapses, all orders above it collapse, and evolution is
forced to start from the last latch. Time is involved, but...... Three steps

forward, one step backward. DQ is undefined and existing in all orders, a
must be. MOQ


A question: what does it mean "that you get nothing for nothing, and damn
little for two cents?" Payment is tied to evolution.

[Case]
If you are talking about a search for the "Laws of Nature", a set of rules
that we can discern that TITs follow I am with you. But evolution is an idea
of such sweeping majesty as to take ones breath away. It applies to species,
planets, and individual behavior. It is a theory about change and how
stability emerges from chaos. The problem I have is with the idea that this
process is directed somehow from outside, rather like David Brin's Uplift
novels. It seems much more plausible to me that consciousness (a term I use
reluctantly) is evolving outward from Earth not being absorbed from the
cosmos.


[Joe]I agree that hurricane Evolution takes ones breath away. But to look at 
the origins of change is not New Orleans. An atmosphere of Oxygen, might 
play a role for PA.


[Joe]
S/O is a description of cosmic evolution mechanical O, and proprietary
awareness evolution S. IMO Ham proposes that a shock, nothingness, is
necessary for PA evolution. Proprietary awareness with another shock,
payment, can consciously evolve to enlightenment. Cosmic evolution O,
proprietary awareness S shocked by payment evolves to conscious
enlightenment, SOE.

[Case]
So you had to drag Ham in. I don't speak Hamish and don't endorse his
trolling for disciples here. But I will say this any focus on a future
purpose, be it enlightenment, or cosmic good or whatever, is just a lot of
hot air.

[Joe]

I agree that plans are made to be broken. That is a bad reason to make no 
plans. As for Ham if you can drag him anywhere, that would be uncomfortable 
for him. I would rather be uncomfortable myself than impose on another.

Joe



> Joe,
>
> Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
>
> I agree with your quote below especially: "... any belief in intelligence 
> or
> consciousness belonging to beings greater in scale than man, is in danger 
> of
> being regarded as superstition."
>
> I am highly suspicious of superstition. As for the view that there maybe
> internal laws of psychology that render man himself predictable I suggest
> these are two different things. We could find such laws but they are
> unlikely to render man predictable.
>
> [snip straight to Kant]
>
> [Joe]
> Kant also used a body/soul split, but claimed the ding an sich was
> unknowable because the mind had its own structure. He avoided abstraction,
> and the world of ideas and opened the door for direct experience. He still
> falls under the S= mind/will, O= body Metaphysics, with his emphasis on 
> the
> categorical imperative.
>
> [Case]
> Just to clarify. Kant's says that we know TITs though the structure of our
> minds. I think in identifying the a priori's he was attempting to specify
> the structure of our minds in much the way the Freud and Jung did later. 
> But
> I think the neuropsych crowd is doing a much more thorough job.
>
> [Joe]
> IMO Pirsig's genius was in seeing that Kant was on the right track with
> structure, but that he wasn't ruthless enough in destroying a body/soul
> split. Kant unnecessarily kept a body/soul split. She is only one 
> organism!
> All is experience. She is not divided. The Categorical Imperative becomes
> evolutionary dimensions of existence, morality.
>
> [Case]
> Kant continued to talk about souls and stuff because he was a theist and
> lived in a land of theists. While I don't hold it against him I don't take
> it seriously either. I also do not see how Kant's ethics is related very
> well to his metaphysics in the Critique. The whole duty and categorical
> imperative are interesting but not satisfying. Pirsig called them ugly. I
> can buy that. The other major theory of ethic comes from Bentham and Mill
> and is based on the greatest happiness principle. We are motivated by
> pleasure and pain. I rather like that one warts and all.
>
> [Joe]
> I go back in history to see how others view existence. Esoteric literature
> describes a law of seven. IMO Existence along with everything else 
> conforms
> to that law. The duality of a body/soul split with real existence and
> intentional existence SOM is incomplete and misleading. I looked back on 
> my
> studies of esoteric literature of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicol, and Collins
> to see how others have viewed existence, and cobble existence and a law of
> seven together.
>
> [Case]
> I don't know about this law of seven of which you speak. I am unfamiliar,
> intentionally so, with they theosophical crowd. I tend to think they have
> earned their obscurity.
>
> [Joe]
> IMO There are dimensions in existence, a moral order. It seems that time 
> is
> necessary for evolution to produce an individual in a new order of
> existence. Morality is the necessity that when a new order evolves from 
> the
> old it cannot destroy the old and continue to exist, there are too many
> interconnected parts. Individuals can destroy what they want to, but not
> morally. Destruction of the environment is morally wrong. It is not too
> clever either. Individuals belong to an order, and it is hard to 
> distinguish
>
> which order because they are so complex. One foot here, a hand there, but
> the center of gravity places them in one of the seven orders. If one order
> of existence collapses, all orders above it collapse, and evolution is
> forced to start from the last latch. Time is involved, but...... Three 
> steps
>
> forward, one step backward. DQ is undefined and existing in all orders, a
> must be. MOQ
>
>
> A question: what does it mean "that you get nothing for nothing, and damn
> little for two cents?" Payment is tied to evolution.
>
> [Case]
> If you are talking about a search for the "Laws of Nature", a set of rules
> that we can discern that TITs follow I am with you. But evolution is an 
> idea
> of such sweeping majesty as to take ones breath away. It applies to 
> species,
> planets, and individual behavior. It is a theory about change and how
> stability emerges from chaos. The problem I have is with the idea that 
> this
> process is directed somehow from outside, rather like David Brin's Uplift
> novels. It seems much more plausible to me that consciousness (a term I 
> use
> reluctantly) is evolving outward from Earth not being absorbed from the
> cosmos.
>
> [Joe]
> S/O is a description of cosmic evolution mechanical O, and proprietary
> awareness evolution S. IMO Ham proposes that a shock, nothingness, is
> necessary for PA evolution. Proprietary awareness with another shock,
> payment, can consciously evolve to enlightenment. Cosmic evolution O,
> proprietary awareness S shocked by payment evolves to conscious
> enlightenment, SOE.
>
> [Case]
> So you had to drag Ham in. I don't speak Hamish and don't endorse his
> trolling for disciples here. But I will say this any focus on a future
> purpose, be it enlightenment, or cosmic good or whatever, is just a lot of
> hot air.
>
>
> 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/