[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

At 02:18 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:

>Ham said to Bo:
>>I find it curious that you (i.e., Pirsig) exhort "instability", 
>>while the rest of mankind is desperately looking for a way to make 
>>the world more stable -- scientifically, socially, economically, 
>>internationally, militarily.  Isn't this going against the central 
>>premise that "the dynamic 'dislike' of biological stability" is 
>>what inexorably moves the world to "betterness"?  If so, how do you 
>>market the philosophy of dynamic instability to a world torn by 
>>instability?  Should you even try?
>
>Marsha comments:
>>The rest of the world?  You do not know what the rest of the world 
>>is desperate for.  Those with power would like to scientifically, 
>>economically, internationally, militarily stabilize events to 
>>enhance their power.  Most of the humans in the world would like 
>>food to feed their families and a decent job or livelihood to 
>>provide the means to do so.
>
>Of course they do.  But do you suppose an unstable world where 
>tribal warriors kill their neighbors in the name of Allah, atheists 
>ridicule believers in the name of science, and deficit spending is 
>encouraged for the "common good" helps feed starving people or makes 
>their lives more secure? Shouldn't the efforts of the intelligentsia 
>be directed toward stabilizing the world rather than preaching the 
>dominance of  intellect over society in the name of "dynamic quality"?

Which intelligentsia are you suggesting have such power?   Maybe 
you're thinking of the Economists, they are calling themselves the 
Intellectuals these days.  And these days the Economists with real 
power are a part of the Washington Celebrity crowd.  Social through 
and through.  That's probably not right, but neither is your 
paragraph.  I should have just snipped it.



>>Equating 'dynamic' and 'instability' get you nothing but accused of 
>>using linguistic tricks.
>
>True, as you have just demonstrated, but such accusations also serve 
>to distract the accuser from having to deal with the point of my 
>argument. "Dynamic" signifies active, changing, variable, as opposed 
>to "static" which is a state of equilibrium characterized by the 
>absence of change or movement.  Clearly thinking, experiencing, and 
>creating are dynamic activities, as is everything in the objective 
>world.  Why is calling such processes static not a "linguistic 
>trick"?  On the other hand, there is nothing about an uncreated, 
>independent and immutable source that suggests "dynamic", whether it 
>is "pure Quality" or absolute Essence.

I like the definition of static as 'showing or admitting of little or 
no change', and not 'absence change or movement.'  The patterns that 
are overlaid onto experience are static.  And DQ I think of as 
Quality whose dynamics is spontaneous.


>>Please offer an example of a finite construct.  Seems to me they 
>>change, they at least have a coming and going.  Show me this 
>>uncreated, independent immutable Essence.  Or does it only exist in 
>>your mind?  And you cannot use the authority of Philosophy to say 
>>it is so, unless Philosophy is like Monopoly.  And that's okay.  Games are fun.
>
>A thing-in-itself is a finite construct, as are all objects of 
>experience. Yes, they all "come and go" because they depend on our 
>conscious awareness for their being.  And, as I said above, 
>experience and intellection are processes that occur over time.  The 
>time dimension is built into experience; it's the way we perceive 
>things.  That we regard it as an inherent principle of the physical 
>world is a consequence of our reflection (in time) which, like 
>experience itself, is a reductive process and subject to its limitations.
>
>I can't "show you" Essence because it is not accessible to human 
>beings.  No creature can "know" Essence because creatures are not 
>essential.  All we can directly know (sense) is the Value of 
>Essence.  Value is essential to our reality as beings-aware.  As an 
>artist, you don't have to be told what value is because you sense it 
>daily.  But you "know" it in terms of the constructs of your 
>experiential reality.  Thus, the values you feel and talk about are 
>always relative to specific phenomena -- the beingness (things and 
>events) that you bring into the world through experience.

Example Ham, example.  What exactly do you mean by 
finite?   Dependency and change makes an object other than a 
thing-in-itself.  The way we perceive things, as independent 
entities, is mistaken.  Our reflections of entities as independent is 
also wrong.  I do not regard time as an inherent principle of the 
physical world.  I regard time as a static-pattern-of-value overlaid 
onto experience.

IF ESSENCE IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, HOW IS ESSENCE 
ACCESSIBLE TO YOU AND YOUR THEORY???

Yes, I agree that the value experienced is relative.  But no things, 
only events, processes and static patterns of value.



>>Understanding that time is also a pattern, and change 'uncreated 
>>source' to DQ and I think we're set to go.
>
>I can accept "pattern" as your label for a phenomenon, provided you 
>understand that we derive the precept of time from the experience of 
>change and the sequence of events.  And experience is a dynamic 
>phenomenon, not static.

I say tomato, you say tomato.   And maybe we should slice it and toss 
it into a salad.



>[Ham, previously]:
>>What Kant (and the existentialists) failed to understand is that 
>>there is no "in" or "out", and that what they called the 
>>"world-in-itself" is actually the experiential world that each self actualizes.
>
>[Marsha]:
>>Then Kant was not right.  One from column A and two from column 
>>B.  Is that one of rules for playing Essence?
>
>No, that's Marsha being persnickety.

I'm not a snob.  Am I?  Fool, yes.  Snob, no.  Am I a snob???



>Best wishes for the new year,
>Ham

And to you.


Marsha


.
.
Look, there's no metaphysics on earth like chocolates.
(Fernando Pessoa)
.
.