[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Laird Bedore]

>  [Laird]:
>   
>> Yep! First name Scottish, last name an American bastardization of a
>> French name (Bedard).  Neither the German or the Irish (Holden,
>> actually!) make it to my namesake.
>>     
> [Ham]
> Interesting.  My last name is probably a bastardization also -- from the
> French Huguenot "Prideaux".  First name is family.  (I'm distantly related
> to Alexander Hamilton.)
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> I just can't get rid of the feeling that something isn't
>> right with physical reality (actualized, not rationalized)
>> being created by intellect.
>>     
>> The statement "reality cannot exist without man, and
>> man cannot exist without reality" translates in my head
>> to anthropocentrism, which I see consistently leading
>> to relativism.
>>     
> [Ham]
> What do you see wrong with anthropocentrism?  If the world is your reality,
> then you are the locus of it.  You create its beingness in time and space
> from the value you sense pre-intellectually.  The only question you have to
> ask is: Why is the universe "universal"?  (In other words, why does everyone
> observe the same universe?)  I think that can be answered by the fact that
> our values all relate to a single Primary Source, the differentiation of
> which is a cosmic (metaphysical) reality.
>
>   
[Laird]
The relativism of reality is my first and most obvious problem. And I 
think the answer is much simpler - we observe the same universe because 
we observe the same universe. In my viewpoint, Existence, including 
non-rationalized being, is prior to sense and thus universal. By no 
means do I think that removes the necessity for a Primary Source, mind you.


> [Ham, previously]:
>   
>> Primary Reality is the fundamental or "substantive" source
>> of existence which logically cannot be either "rational" or
>> an intellectualization.
>>     
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> I think that's one thing I'm quite good at not confusing.
>> When I said "intellectualization of existence (rational reality)",
>> I was not speaking of Existence, I was speaking of
>> intellectualization.
>>     
>
> You'll be less confused if you call your "rational reality" Existence and
> "primary reality" Quality, Essence, or the Source.
>
>   
[Laird]
When words are written in "proper" form (first letter capitalized), it 
implies a deeper interpretation of the standard meaning. That's why I 
call rational reality "existence". Working against the grammar pounded 
into me throughout grade school creates confusion not only for me but 
for the conveyance of my ideas to others.


>> [Laird]
>> I see Existence (capital E) as the whole of SQ, actualized
>> by DQ (the Source). Constantly reactualized and updated
>> and changing, thanks to non-physical DQ. This relationship
>> of DQ actualizing SQ is the source of "time" as we know it.
>>     
> [Ham]
> Time/space is the dimensional mode of human experience.  It stems from the
> presentation of reality in "the present" which is constantly changing,
> leaving prior experience in "the past".  Likewise, the "extension" of things
> in space gives us the perspective necessary to complete the appearance of
> physical reality.  Everything in existence is relative and differentiated -- 
> including the observing subject.  It's the primary characteristic of
> actualized reality.
>
>   
[Laird]
I view time as pre-intellectual as well. Just like gravity, it's a 
phenomenon that we observe and put a name to, but the phenomenon exists 
regardless of our words.

>> [Laird]
>> With Existence characterized this way ("just the moon"),
>> I see it as being VERY different from rational reality
>> ("finger pointing at the moon"). I think this definition of
>> Existence (capital) allows for our understanding of existence
>> (rational) to more readily treat light, ideas and other not-quite-
>> physicals as existents.  I think this brings physical-vs-
>> nonphysical fields like neurology and psychology much,
>> much closer to agreement.
>>     
> [Ham]
> The way you describe it, I think your rational reality IS your DQ reality.
> You have not allowed for a non-existential source, and you end up with a
> non-theological pantheism.  Think of it this way: the source [Essence] does
> not "exist", it simply "IS".  What we experience as its actualization is its
> division into finite phenomena by the nothingness of our intellectual
> awareness.  This is akin to the biblical reference, "seeing through a glass,
> darkly."  Our cognizance of reality is limited by finitude and delimited by
> nothingness.  We live in a relational system designed so that we can realize
> the value of its non-relational source.
>
>   
[Laird]
No, that's in absolutely direct contradiction to what I said. My quoted 
paragraph below also shows I see DQ as primary and non-existent, but 
fundamentally intertwined with Existence in a codependent dance. Like 
your Nothingness/Essence approach.

My DQ = your Nothingness
My Quality = your Essence
My Existence = your Difference
My rational existence = your Existence
>> [Laird]
>> I'd agree that rational existence is only the experience
>> (again, intellectual) of a differentiated physical reality.
>> I don't view Existence (capital E) as primary because I think
>> it's a bad description.  DQ, Essence, is "primary", but
>> Existence is not secondary - without Existence, DQ would
>> have nothing to work with and would ultimately degrade
>> into true, pure, absolute nothing. A sort of strange
>> codependent monism? Kind of an oxymoron, but I think
>> that's just SOM talking.
>>     
> [Ham]
> Yes, it is SOM talking.  The Pirsigians think I'm an SOMist, but I'm really
> not.  If anything, I'm a "subjectivist".  We are the subjects who create our
> world of "objects" from our own subjectivity.  If Essence is Absolute
> Sensibility, then proprietary awareness is differentiated (finite)
> sensibility.  The appearance of Finitude begins with Difference.  I say
> Difference is created by a "negational" Essence.  My hypothesis is that
> Essence negates (denies) nothingness as a principle of its own perfection.
> This creates a dichotomy (Awareness/Otherness) in which selfness and
> beingness are the primary contingencies.  The negated Nothingness separates
> each "being"  and each "self" from every other, thus causing the appearance
> of existential reality.  But, because it's a negated Nothingness, it's
> illusory and conditional, and it seeks to reclaim its primary unconditional
> status.  That "seeking" is expressed in the values we sense.  Ultimately,
> the estranged value of "otherness" is restored to its absolute identity in
> Essence.
>
>   
[Laird]
I'd agree with "subjectivist" and understand how it can be seen as 
SOM-ish. In comparison I spin the worldview of "our experience creates 
'something'" to "we experience 'something'". I think it explains the 
same stuff without all the complexities of negations, estrangements and 
fundamental illusion near the core.

When I'm programming or building complex networks and I find myself 
having to build strange one-off traps to resolve what appears to be a 
logical inconsistency, it's a sign that I've cocked up a fundamental 
part of my design.  I go back and revise myWhen design, the end result 
is a far simpler and cohesive network or program. I get the same feeling 
when following your nest of negations, estrangements and illusions. I 
think my superposition of Existence into the framework unties a bunch of 
those logical knots.

>> [Laird]
>> I think our ideas are compatible. Existence (capital) just
>> adds a bit that resolves my "feeling of something wrong"
>> - my feeling that Existence can exist (I need a better word!)
>> without rationalization ever occuring in the universe. I'm
>> big on maintaining the possibility of the universe even
>> if/when rational beings didn't exist. An anthropocentric
>> viewpoint mandates an assumption that the universe must
>> always contain something doing the rationalizing, and I
>> just don't think that works.  Thus my need to bridge the gap!
>>     
>
> If you understand time as the mode of finite experience, you will see that
> temporal precepts like "always", "never", and "possible" are intellectual
> constructs that are metaphysically meaningless.  That the universe existed
> before mankind was aware of it is such a construct.  Awareness (finite,
> proprietary sensibility) is an actualized reality, despite the fact that we
> see it as an evolutionary development.  That's why I don't stress evolution
> in my philosophy.  God either is or is not.  Sensible awareness either is or
> is not.  Progression and sequence are finite illusions.  Reality, whether
> viewed as experiential or metaphysical, is a 'fait accompli'.
>
> Does that "bridge the gap"?
>
>   
[Laird]
They may be meaningless in an anthropocentric philosophy, but I aim for 
a broader philosophy that can describe more than The Universe As 
Exclusively Experienced By Humans. I find these constructs quite useful 
for broadening my perspective.

When progression and sequence (the fundamental "stuff" of patterns and 
emergence from chaos) are illusory and reality is described as an 
"oops", I see really huge gaps in the philosophy that still need to be 
bridged.

Cheers,
-Laird