[MD] A universe fit for MOQ not SOM

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi David M.

On 30 March:

First of all thanks for responding to my question re. Essentialism. 

Today however you began by quoting Ham's: 
 
> > Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, whom I quoted as saying "I cannot
> > imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores
> > consciousness.  It's not enough for the information to be stored
> > somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody.  It's necessary for
> > somebody to look at it.  In the absence of observers, our universe
> > is dead,"  has more to say on this subject, which you can read at
> > http://www.slate.com/id/2100715 .  This is a conversational little
> > essay by Jim Holt, a friend of  Linde who, while he exactly doesn't
> > reach my conclusion, at least opens the door to it.  For example ...

and continued:
 
> Ham quoted this, you know, the whole point of MOQ is to overcome SOM's
> troubles. 

It's troubles definitely and they stems from it's metaphysics claim, 
but it's equally important to keep its advantages, something the 
SOL takes care of.   

> Without SOM we should not be dividing experience into subjective and
> objective aspects all the time, the SO distinction is not essential or
> fundamental and is in fact very misleading. 

What's chicken and what's egg? I stick to ZAMM's that it began 
with the Greek thinker's search for eternal principles, the first stint 
ending with Socrates Truth (objectivity over subjectivity) that only 
later developed into a SOM. 

No, it's not fundamental (metaphysically valid) but it's the highest 
and best static good nevertheless - the intellectual level - that has 
liberated existence from the social level's constraints.

> Consciousness and materiality do not need to  be joined up because they
> have never been apart in reality-experience until sundered apart by
> SOM.

There were no consciousness (as different from what it is 
conscious of) nor "materiality" before SOM, these are SOM's 
creations. As said to (someone) you will not find these concepts 
in the pre-intellectual documents (the Old Testament books 
Pirsigs says) 

 The distinctions of SOM need to be treated as much more
> provisional and fuzzy under MOQ than under SOM. 

Yes, but you need a new metaphysical fundament for such a 
change to take place.

> Hence Pirsig says that we cannot banish under MOQ ideas like molecules
> chosing their bonds, ideas that SOM bans for its metaphysical reasons.
> Seems to me too many people here want to proclaim the MOQ with one hand
> and add back all the distinctions of SOM with the other. 

No need to be coy Roy,  I guess I'm the target here. I admit to 
proclaiming the MOQ with one hand and add back the S/O 
distinctions with the other, but can't you get into your head the 
difference between the S/O distinction as a static good and as a 
metaphysical "evil"? 

Bo