[MD] Intellectual activity

[Ham Priday]

 Hi again, Platt --

As I write this, I'm listening to Tchaikovsky's 1st, "Winter Dreams"; and
what a gorgeous piece of music that is!  You really should give some thought
to trading up from Rachy to Kovsky ;-)

> Rather than Plato I had in mind Bishop Berkeley, the eighteenth century
> Irish philosopher whose philosophy of Idealism was summed up by his
> dictum, "Esse est percipi" (To be is to be perceived).

It's been awhile since I read Berkeley, but I am largely in agreement with
his epistemology.  I've previously stated that "for something to be it must
be made aware."  My quarrel with the good Bishop is his assertion that
things are "a collection of ideas".  The universal template transcends human
thought and intellect, and is still a puzzle to me.  Lately, I've arrived at
the simplest explanation: that it's "what happens" when the Absolute negates
nothingness.  I look at it as a metaphysical principle that the universe is
seen to arise out of nothingness, take shape and form, and differentially
arrange itself into diverse celestial objects in a self-supporting
relational system, one or more of which may evolve living species.  You may
call this conclusion a "default position", and perhaps it is avoiding the
issue, but I have no other insight that would explain the nature of physical
reality.

[Ham, previously]:
> The world's existence before man is a moot point from several
> perspectives. Firstly, if experience creates the universe (as Mr. Pirsig
> suggests), there is no world prior to man.

[Platt]:
> Assumption: Only man experiences. My cat UTOE (Universal Theory of
> Everything) challenges that assumption. Further, he refuses to accept
> that his existence depends on my looking at him.

Okay, I stand corrected.  There is no world prior to man and your cat.  (I
like the acronym, by the way.)

[Ham, previously]:
>  Secondly, if time (and space) are constructs of man's intellect
>  (also an MoQ inference), then man's world and reality are
> "co-eternally" absolute.

[Platt]:
> Assumption: Time and space constitute reality. Modern physics
> challenges that assumption.

Every assumption has challengers.  Physicists, biologists, and chemists
study physical phenomena (experiential otherness) in terms of what is
universally verifiable.  They take objective reality for granted, including
space/time, energy forces, evolution, and all statistical data that conform
to their construct of physical reality.  Science does not recognize
subjectivity, the role of consciousness in creating this reality, or the
aesthetic values of psycho-somatic experience.

[Ham, previously]:
> I'm of the opinion that space/time is the mode of human awareness,
> and that its dual nature reflects the self/other dichotomy which makes
> being-aware possible.  Change (or evolution) in what we experience
> as "being" is a primary factor in the realization of value, but it does
> not occur in the essential Source which is immutable.

[Platt]:
> Assumption: Evolution is irrelevant in explaining reality. Modern
> biology challenges that assumption. (Someday the biologists and the
> physicists may get together. A reality consisting of value levels could
> bring this about.)

I doubt it, since Science ignores qualitative value.  Actually, I don't
relish the idea of scientists dabbling about with metaphysical concepts.
Better that they keep to their goal of improving  man's environment and
physical well-being via the principles they know so well.

[Ham, previously]:
>  I've tried reading the Ant-Scott dialogue, which you've recently
>  praised, but got lost in the Undifferentiated Aesthetic Continuum.
> To me that's an oxymoron.  Can you conceive of an aesthetic
> phenomenon that isn't differentiated?  The very basis of art, music,
> and the color or sonic spectrum that applies to them is differential.

[Platt]:
> Assumption: The aesthetic continuum refers exclusively to art. Ant,
> Northrop, Pirsig, Platt and others challenge that assumption. The
> aesthetic continuum is experience prior to conceptual differentiation,
> aesthetic because that experience is of value or Quality.

I don't allow as how experience precedes differentiation.

[Ham, previously]:
> Could you have good and evil without difference?  Would you know
> excellence from mediocrity in an undifferentiated continuum?

[Platt]:
> Assumption: Existence can only be known by difference. Many
> challenge that assumption because they have experienced figure and
> ground (beingness) as one. I've seen it while in the presence of
> great art, others in meditation, "flow" or "peak experiences."

If you see "figure and ground" as one in art, I would suggest that it is
time to clean the canvas or purchase a new pair of glasses.

[Platt resorts to Pirsig for a final challenge]:
> Assumption: Morality is about good and evil in a human social context.
> Pirsig challenges that assumption by showing that the premise of a
> moral (quality) universe explains reality better than a subject-object
> universe.

You force me to repeat myself.  The universe is not moral.  Morality is an
inductive principle gleaned from man's perception of polarized values.  What
is "good" for man is not necessarily good for the universe, and vice versa.
Anyway, since the univere IS subject-object experience, trying to define it
as non-dual doesn't help our understanding.

No offense, Platt.  I'm just feeding you some cognitive "dissonance" so you
can arrive at a "beautiful resolution".

Essentially yours,
Ham