[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,


> [Marsha said:]
> Space and time are conceptually constructed static patterns of value.
> A Value event/process would be equivalent to (Quality(Dynamic
> and static)). Evolution is a highly valued intellectual static pattern.
> Why do you think the "static pattern" concept doesn't support
> evolution or experience?

Ham:
Because nothing experienced is static and evolution itself is change.  An 
idea in one's head -- a triangle or a platitude, for example -- may be a 
static representation of something experienced, but it's only an 
intellectualized symbol.  Existence is a process in which everything is in 
transition, from electrons to mountains to one's life-experience.  We don't 
always see the change, but it is a fundamental characteristic of 
experiential reality.

Marsha:
Seems that way.


> [Marsha:]
> So your 'uncreated source' is knowable (you've defined it as static),
> how do you know?

Ham:
Knowledge is what we learn from experience. 

Marsha:
Knowledge is what we have learned from _past_ experience.  By 'we' do you
mean a collective consciousness, like a collective consciousness of knowing
that might be found in a science textbook?  I have never seen an atom so I
must rely on scientists who have seen an atom to share their knowledge.  But
wait a minute, they haven't seen an atom either.  What experience?  Who's
experience?  


Ham:
Philosophy has to deal with the unknown.  

Marsha:
Well, I'm confused by what is known and unknown, but am more inclined to
trust that there is heaps of unknown.


Ham:
Metaphysical concepts are theories or hypotheses to explain what we cannot
directly know.  

Marsha:
Can a metaphysical concept be known or is a metaphysical concept an unknown
about the unknown?  (Where's that rabbit hole?)


Ham:
There is no basis for imputing change, evolution, or differences to the
ultimate source.  

Marsha:
Is there a basis for denying change, evolution, or differences after first
imputing an ultimate source?  What was the basis for imputing an 'ultimate
source'?  Preference?  Ham prefers an ultimate source.  Marsha does not
prefer an ultimate source.  


Ham:
Thus, the concept of Dynamic Quality as the primary empirical reality is a
theory, as is the hypothesis of an immutable uncreated source.

Marsha:
'Thus', like in 'therefore'?  Was there a rational argument somewhere that I
missed?  I seem to have missed that truth in that underlying premise.  


I'll let Joe take it from here, but I confess I have great faith in his
dividing by zero.



Marsha





Ham had said:
> We live in a space/time world of appearances.  The phenomena we
> experience are all the result of change and difference which frames the
> universe.  The only truly "static" entity in reality is the uncreated 
> source,
> and that we can only hypothesize about.

Joe responded:
> As I read the above I hurt!  If space/time is a world of only appearances,
> what am I sitting here?  I want to be my reality!  Ham, the depth of your
> despair leaves me in tears!  Maybe if I could say something!
>
> I will ask you to consider the possibility that there are levels in
> existence.   Existence is not so ignorant that it supposes that one shoe
> fits all.   I do have to credit existence with discrimination since I have
> shouted to the rooftops for existence to give me peace.  I guess I am
> born to tilt at windmills.

Where is the "despair" in my description of the "world of appearances"? 
(That term is Hegel's, not mine, by the way.)  Is it the fact that 
experience is constantly changing?  Or is it that we can't have access to 
absolute truth?

I know it's possible to divide existence into any number of levels, but how 
does this enhance our understanding?  Existence is neither "ignorant" nor 
"informed", whether we conceptualize it as a hierarchy or a unity. 
Crediting existence with "discrimination" eludes my comprehension.  Man is 
the discriminating agent of the universe.  It is man who distinguishes the 
good from the bad, the beautiful from the ugly, the magnificent from the 
common, and all the values in between.

If you are not "at peace" with your value-sensibility as it is, perhaps a 
little nurturing of that sensibility will change your values and bring you 
more contentment.

Cheers,
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/