[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Ham,
> [Ham]
> Laird --
>
> I'll go directly to your syllogisms, since they define the terms that
> establish our respective ontologies:
>
>   
>> [Laird]
>> My DQ = your Nothingness
>>     
> [Ham]
> I trust this is meant to express an assumed functional equation, rather than
> a descriptive one (RBP would scream).  It suggests that the function of DQ
> is to divide and differentiate, which is what my Nothingness does.  I
> believe DQ is Pirsig's "essence" insofar as he treats it metaphysically.  I
> think he would say that it is Experience which differentiates DQ into levels
> and patterns.
>
>   
[Laird]
Sure, functional equations sound more useful to addressing this.
I interpret DQ as "just happening", or "emergence from chaos or 
nothing", with the latching of SQ doing the differentiation into 
patterns. With DQ alone, we can maintain no patterns, after all.


>> [Laird]
>> My Quality = your Essence
>>     
> [Ham]
> If Quality is unconditional, it's a valid equation.  However, like Value,
> Quality is always experienced conditionally -- i.e., relative to a
> particular experience.
>
>   
[Laird]
You've stated before that you view experience as intellectual and thus 
conditional (there's some logic inbetween, but that's enough for now). 
The MoQ considers Value/Quality as unconditional and inherent to 
everything - DQ, SQ, the whole works. So I'll go with "Quality is 
unconditional".


>> [Laird]
>> My Existence = your Difference
>>     
> [Ham]
> Insofar as Difference (the function of Nothingness) is the ground of
> Existence, the equation holds true.
>
>   
[Laird]
This statement I have a hard time discerning, because you use Existence 
in the definition. By basis of the functional equation, this becomes 
circular logic... I think I could translate this to "Existence = the 
whole of SQ (the function of DQ), which is the ground of 
differentiation". And I think I'd agree.


>> [Laird]
>> My rational existence = your Existence
>>     
> [Ham]
> I guess I don't understand your use of "rational" here.  Is your
> "rationalization" what I would call "intellection"?  In my thesis I use the
> term "objectivizing" for the differentiating process, as opposed to the
> intellectualized objects themeselves.  Is this what you mean?
>
>   
[Laird]
I think I'm using it the same way you use intellection.


>> [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]
> Why do you see relativism as a complication or a problem?  Or, are you
> referring to my universe being "relative" to yours?  I understand that you
> view the universe as a literal, ineluctable reality.  That's the view of the
> existentialists and logical positivists.  But surely you can't deny its
> relational structure.  And, how do you interpret the Primary Source as a
> "necessity" for the universe?
>
>   
[Laird]
If each person's universe is relative to each other's, we end up with a 
countless array of different, subjective universes. For science to have 
any usefulness, this position must be untenable. I wouldn't call my view 
of the universe literal - literalism is fundamentalist SOM, and I see 
the universe as a collection of existents prior to the "intellection" 
that creates SOM. The subjects and objects are thoroughly relational, 
and intellectual relativism gives us the power of abstraction. But I 
reject a fundamental relativism in the root of my cosmology. I might 
have some agreement with existentialist viewpoints, but I think I'm 
quite far from logical positivism.

As far as the necessity of a Primary Source... Without a primary source 
there cannot be any "something", and that would reduce the universe 
(either as it is, or as we know it) to the realm of absolute nothing, 
making our own existence, intellectualization, and, well, everything, a 
paradox.


>> [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.
>>
>> 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]
> Okay, I'll conform to Existence (cap E) as the ":real or imagined" reality
> and existence as your "rational" world.  But I still don't see the
> distinction.  Also, I'm no student of the MoQ, but I don't think Pirsig
> intended DQ to actualize SQ.  I think he suggested that this is the function
> of Experience.
>
>   
[Laird]
Without DQ actualizing SQ, we would have no SQ. How could SQ come to be 
without interacting with the Source?


>  [Ham, previously]:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> [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.
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> It's really the "illusion" that troubles you, isn't it?  You want a fixed
> concrete reality that won't disappear if you should turn away or leave this
> world.  That's a perfectly normal position, the "most sensible" position if
> you were to ask a scientist.  It's how we were designed to view it.  I'll
> grant you that the MoQ and Essentialism are both a little weird in their
> cosmologies.  It takes some getting used to.
>
>   
[Laird]
What troubles me is "illusion" as a fundamental building block of 
Existence. Illusion in our experience and rationalization is fine with 
me, in fact I see it as necessary, even self-evident through the act of 
rationalization. Since I view Reality (my Existence definition) as 
distinct and prior to rationalization, this apparent contradiction is 
compatible with my worldview.

>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>> Whe  I go back and revise my 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> Sort of like Occam's razor, eh?  Yes, I'd very much like to simplify my
> theory and drop some of the troublesome dynamics.  So far, however, it has
> been growing in complexity.  I'm looking for somebody without an ax to grind
> to invalidate some of my fundamental assumptions.  (Not the Pirsigians,
> though -- they're much too paranoic about defending the MoQ.)
>
>   
[Laird]
Basically, yeah. It's like Occam's razor plus a contingency that the 
result must embody higher quality than the starting point. Pragmatic!

It's hard to find someone who isn't grinding SOME sort of axe. Defending 
against axe-grinders is one of the cornerstones of rational endeavours. 
Points undefended never gain credibility, so a little give-and-take is 
necessary (as you've done by discussing on this forum). Sure, a good 
deal of the MoQ-supporting crowd is a bit paranoic, but that's the 
status quo for supporters of every new idea. I don't see it as out of 
the ordinary.


>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> Well, you've come to the right forum.  Most of the people here insist that
> the universe is experienced in some way by atoms, amoeba, trees, and
> planets.  The fact that these entities are all objectivized by human
> experience in the first instance doesn't seem to bother them.
>
>   
[Laird]
It's a push for philosophical ideas to transcend our own rationality. 
Whether it's possible or not, I dunno. I have fun trying, though!


> [Ham]
> I've enjoyed our discussion, Laird.  You articulate clearly and are
> forthright with your points, which I appreciate.  Perhaps we can get beyond
> spaghetti monsters and continue our discussion in some less tangled area ;-)
>   
[Laird]
Yes, this discussion has been very enjoyable. The religious mockery of 
the Flying Spaghetti Monster might not be the highest-quality 
intellectual thing ever written (HAH!) but it sure is humorous! And a 
good laugh during serious discussions goes a long way.

-Laird