[MD] Intellectual activity

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham (Arlo mentioned), 
 
[Ham]
> 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 ;-)

As Arlo might say I don't dichotomize between Rachy and Kovsky as one 
being any better than the other. I love both equally. My collection of 
Kovsky works exceeds Rachy's, and not just because Kovsky has more. Be 
that it as it may, I'm glad to see your psycho-somatic aesthetic 
sensibility is as vigorous as ever. :-) 

[Platt previously]
> > 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).

[Ham] 
> 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.
 
You lost me again. Someday I hope to gain enough wisdom to understand 
your philosophy in flash of comprehension. I just can't seem to get 
over the hurdle of "negating nothingness" which to me, no matter how I 
look at it, amounts to something -- though I haven't the slightest idea 
what. 

> [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.)

Don't you mean "There is a world prior to me and my cat?"

> [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.

I beg to defer. Science studies consciousness and its role in creating 
reality with all the brains it can bring to bear on the subject. For 
starters, I refer you to the work of Murray Gell-Mann at the Sante Fe 
Institute. As for aesthetic values, scientists often consider beauty to 
be an essential criterion for a theory's validity.  

> [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.

Pirsig makes the point that science doesn't ignore values any more than 
the rest of us. For example, they regard faking data as immoral. But as 
for their dabbling about with metaphysics, I agree they should tend to 
their knitting. 

> [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.

Well, there's the rub. 

> [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.

I don't see figure and ground as one in art. Great art combines the two 
in me.  Good way to express your doubt,  though. :-) 

> [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".

Love it! When we take our respective philosophies too seriously, it's a 
sure sign we're missing something. I agree with whoever said, "Humor 
and paradox get close to the fire of truth."

May Kovsky enlighten all your days,

Platt