[MD] differences between MoQ and SOM

[Ham Priday]

Zenith --

> Excellent criticism. Although, I'd hardly think animism childish.

But do you now agree that this is animism?

> "We speak of people who attract and repel each other
> (like magnets), of the force of habit, of cause and effect . . .
> our language is liberally sprinkled with the metaphors of
> science- and the language of science is inescapably fused
> with images from everyday life."
> -K.C. Cole
>
> and I forget where I read this (paraphrased):
> "Especially when talking about the quantum world, we are
> forced to use language that is increasingly poetic...
> electrons that "orbit" and "jump"... we have strings that
> "vibrate"... "strange" quarks..."
>
> Animism is sometimes necessary for people to be able to
> understand and talk about nature. ...
> Now, do I think that an apple falls to the ground because
> it literally "likes" to? Yes and no.
>
> Whether you say that the apple likes to fall or that it is pulled
> toward the ground by the force of gravity (because there's no
> implication of choice involved in being pulled); we can still
.> agree on what is happening. Do I think that an apple could,
> despite disliking it, fall up?  No. An apple is predetermined,
> always, to fall down.

That we often speak in metaphors is true, but philosophy is not about 
language but about reality.  So long as we regard poets as philosophers, we 
shall never learn the truth about reality.

What you seem to be aiming at is a teleology for the behavior of inanimate 
objects and events.  That's commendable, but it's a different concept than 
claiming that rocks and trees "value" their natural goals and ends.  There 
is a certain "determinism" to the universe in that it's self-sustaining and 
directed toward the production of viable life forms.  That characteristic is 
perceived by MAN as Value.  But saying that objects "prefer" or "favor" what 
they are by nature predetermined to do impugns awareness to them, which is 
fantasy.  Only a child observes a boulder rolling down a hill and concludes 
that it "wants to" reach a lower level.

Since you are obviously unacquainted with my philosophy, let me try to 
explain the fundamentals.  First, whatever exists is experiential; that is 
to say, for a thing to be it must be experienced.  This was recently 
expressed very simply by Robert Lanza in this statement I quoted yesterday 
to Krimel:

"Without perception, there is in effect no reality.  Nothing has existence 
unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is perceived 
further influences that reality.  Even time itself is not exempted from 
biocentrism."

Astrophysicist John Wheeler expressed this concept as it applies to the 
physical universe: "Laws of physics relate to man, the observer, more 
closely than anyone has thought before.  The universe is not 'out there', 
somewhere, independent of us. ...Simply put: without an observer, there are 
no laws of physics."

What I'm saying is that experience literally CREATES what we see, touch, and 
feel, and all the properties and laws of existence are intellectualized from 
that experience.  This is what I call proprietary awareness, and it starts 
with the "value of otherness" which is the locus of self-awareness to which 
all human beings are sensible.  In fact, "being aware" is the individual's 
fundamental sense of value.  Which means that the relational values that one 
experiences as emotional feelings - awe, joy, moral goodness (or evil) are 
all constructs of our value sensibility.  To make sense of these emotions, 
the brain and central nervous system integrates organic sensation into a 
systematic whole which is our worldview.  Except for our individuated 
(space/time) perspective, this view of a physical universe is the same for 
everybody, because the value we sense is derived from the same essential 
source.

> Personally, I don't believe in essences, nor do I understand
> the need for the experience to be tied to awareness; certainly
> it can't be tied to self-awareness (because otherwise animals
> would not experience things, and I believe they do.)  How do
> we even know there *is* such a thing as awareness, if I'm
> understanding your meaning of the word correctly?
> Because we have self-awareness, we must also have pre-intellectual
> awareness?  Er, sorry. That it is definitely another subject.
> I am willing to start a new thread for it, if you want.

Zenith, although your willingness to open a new thread on behalf of my 
Philosophy of Essence is much appreciated, I'm known as a "renegade" in this 
forum and my views run counter to those of Pirsig, especially with respect 
to the fundamental metaphysics.  It wouldn't be fair (ethical?') to use the 
MD to promote my philosophy.  (Several participants have already accused me 
of this.)  However, most of your questions are addressed in my online thesis 
at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.  It includes a Creation hypothesis as 
well as numerous arguments supporting man's role in the cosmos as the "free 
agent" of value.  I would urge you to read it first, then get back to me 
(either on the MD or from my own Forum Page) for any additional 
clarification which I'll be only too happy to offer.

Thanks for your understanding, and I look forward to further discussion on 
these topics.

Essentially yours,
Ham