[MD] What all is about.

[Peter Corteen]

Howdy Ham,

I am not in a position where I can get this Bicameral Mind theory out of the
way. True, it is just a theory although it is based on scholarly research.
True, it had a cool reception by his piers, but a momentous idea like that
has to be digested for decades like the larger theory of evolution. Nobody
as far as I know has found a critical flaw in the theory yet. I like it
because, as an atheist I have to confront the question of how did the idea
of God arise? For me Jaynes' proposal provides a possible fit in the jigsaw
of ontology. I realise it is at a tangent to your and Bo's original
discussion though.

I'm relieved that, as you pointing out, there are ex-Muslims; I should have
remembered Rushdie, the other two I haven't heard of and will 'google' them
later. I agree that there is little significant difference between the
Christian fundamentalist and the Muslim but do you not hold your 'Essence'
as a 'Divine Being'? If not, then are you not, by your own argument, a
nihilist? I don't consider myself a nihilist. I think the Muslim extremist
is more nihilist. I do not deny my own existence as an individual and I rely
on my proprietary awareness as my measure of relative truth and value; just
as you, and we all, cannot help but do.

-Peter


On 05/11/2007, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bo, and Greetings Peter --
>
>
> Let's get this Bicameral Mind theory out of the way first, because it's a
> speculative anthropological hypothesis by a psychologist that really
> doesn't
> add anything to the Ontology of All which we are discussing.
>
> Peter helped me understand what you meant by Muslims being "latter day
> social level people".
>
> [Peter]:
> > You refer to the Muslim world as a social level culture that has
> > not adopted intellect as it's focus.  This is a touchy subject and
> > you are brave to say that.  I'm not sure you are right though your
> > words certainly resonate. The Muslim world has produced
> > fantastic architecture and art over the centuries and, of course,
> > they have given much to mathematics also; all of these require
> intellect.
> > I am not a Muslim but my impression of their way of life is one of very
> > strong social pressures where it is barely possible to even consider
> > that Allah may be a myth as that in itself would be enough to guarantee
> > your oblivion; they could argue with the non-believer but never really
> > consider their point of view.
> >
> > It's a growing force, a true giant; I hear of Westerners converting
> > to Islam but I never heard of an ex-Muslim.
>
> Salman Rushdie, Walid Shoebat, and Hirsi Ali are all ex-Muslims, and the
> latter is now a self-professed atheist.  Personally, I don't see any
> significant difference in the thought process of a Christian
> fundamentalist
> and that of a Muslim.  Both hold their Divine Being to be the Rule-Maker
> and
> ultimate master of the world, however "intellectual" this belief system
> may
> be regarded by the rest of humanity.  If we follow the logic of your
> argument, nihilism represents a higher or "more evolved" intellectual
> development than theism, and I think that's a hypocritical conclusion.
>
> What distinguishes religion from philosophy is that the believer is
> committed to canonic law, either willfully or by the moral compulsion of
> his
> culture, thereby excluding the possibility of free thought.  The
> intellectual "handicap" here is not some biogenetic deficiency or
> anthropological stagnation; it is a value decision by the believer, not a
> lack of intellect on his part.  We tend to forget that intellectual giants
> like Augustine, Eckhart, and Aquinas formulated their ontologies at the
> height of the Christian epoch.
>
> [Bo]:
> > But at times you sound like an Old Peoples' Home inmate
> > repeating things regardless of your room mate's argument. And
> > can anything be said without "transcending the individual", i.e.
> > assuming that there is a reality greater than individual who
> > speaks about it? Even in SOM this is impossible.
>
> Verbal communication is not "transcending the individual".  We can share
> our
> thoughts with others, but we can't share our value sensibilities with
> them.
> Value sensibility is proprietary to individual awareness and is
> non-transferable.
>
> > The SO dichotomy may be paradoxical, bit it's a dilemma only for those
> > who insist on an existential reality.  Quality is not alone in being
> > exclusively neither mind nor matter; this is also true of Freedom,
> > Excellence, Beauty, Love, Balance, Goodness, Integrity, Harmony,
> > Symmetry, Magnificence, and dozens of other attributions, even
> > Consciousness itself.  Must we regard them all as Quality?
>
> [Bo]:
> > ...Pirsig's point is that existence is an evolution towards the better
> > and in that sense Quality is BEST. I combine Quality and D/S by
> > seeing the DQ/DQ  as MOQ's first postulate.
>
> What does DQ/DQ represent?  If the slash is intended as a division, it
> would
> signify Quality divided by itself.  By mathematical law, anything divided
> by
> itself is unity.  How does unity gives us diversity?  A "first postulate"
> or
> primary principle should logically be the causal source or progenitor of
> difference.  In my philosophy the source is absolute Essence.  The
> appearance of diversity (actualized Existence) is a perceived reduction of
> the primary source.
>
> [Bo]:
> > More valid points. There are several concepts that escape the
> > S/O matrix, and as a veteran of this site you will remember how
> > many MO -Xs that have been proposed, but as all just copies the
> > MOQ Quality is the mother of them all.
> [skip]
> > P. had not spotted the SOM at this time - not to speak of
> > formulating a MOQ - he sees "scientific thought" as his
> > antagonist and his task to be that of uniting science and art.
>
> That's an interesting analysis of Pirsig's strategy.  It does seem to
> describe what the author set out to do in his SODV presentation and
> novels,
> although I'm not sure that it qualifies as philosophy.  Assuming you are
> right, and that science and art can be unified, how does this lead to a
> metaphysics, let alone a morality system?
>
> [Bo]:
> > If SOM poses no problem why bother, but you seem like having
> > passed all philosophy by since Aristotles. The empiricists,
> > Berkeley who found that "everything exists in our mind only".
> > Immanuel Kant who believed he came to common sense's
> > rescue (that there is a S/O, not only S) but ended with postulating
> > a reality (Das Ding an Sich) out there, completely ineffable.
> > Modern physics still worse solipsisms.[??]   Is this no problem?
>
> Differentiated existence is enigmatic (without a transcendent metaphysics
> to
> explain it), but it needn't be a problem if we acknowledge existence as a
> reduced, finite perspective of ultimate reality.  The MoQ does not seem to
> allow for relational perspective.  Instead it rejects the "knower" and
> relegates what is known (intelligence, knowledge) to a supra-human realm
> that exists without distinctions.  If reality is empirical, a subject is
> required to experience it.  With no SO distinction, you kill empirical
> reality.  This is why I maintain that the MoQ is existentialist
> pantheism--minus the theism.  The fallacy, in my opinion, is the idea that
> Quality can stand alone, apart from a conscious observer.
>
> [Bo]:
> > It's all this that gives the MOQ its enormous explanatory power
> > and leaves SOM behind in its paradoxical dust. But if your sole
> > mission is to say "no" to it all ...phew. I'm not asking you to leave
> > dear Ham, you philosophize at least.
>
> Dear Bo, I'm most certainly not saying "no" to all.  I'm saying that
> Existence is a self/other dichotomy.  If there is no sensibility, no
> cognizant awareness, there is no empirical reality.  My premise is as
> simple
> as that.  The philosopher must look beyond empirical otherness for its
> (and
> our) ultimate source.
>
> --Ham
>
>
> 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/
>