[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[MarshaV]

At 05:48 PM 1/26/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha --
>
>>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.
>
>By "intelligentsia" I meant elitists who call themselves 
>philosophers.  I was suggesting that they might think twice about 
>advocating the dominance of intellect over society in an unstable 
>world where competition for power prevails.  As a Pirsigian, you 
>view Social and Intellectual as levels of Quality vying for 
>power.  I don't.  To the extent that social behavior is 
>intellectual, it merely reflects the intellect of its individual 
>members. There is no need to consider biological, social, and 
>intellectual processes in a competitive struggle for world 
>dominance.  We have enough of that already.

I agree with Bo that the levels are important and that the MOQ 
perspective is above the level hierarchy.  But I think a stronger 
impact can be made from understanding the nature of the patterns that 
inhabit the levels.  So here I agree with you.  Once the nature of 
the patterns is understood, the usefulness of the level structure 
becomes obvious.   I am concerned that the patterns are seen as 
independent (inherently existing) entities, just a new name for 
objects.  This I think is the wrong view.  RMP has stated that there 
are no thing-in-themselves in the MOQ, and he has mentioned Buddhism 
and emptiness, though he has not stated my interpretation directly.




>>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.
>
>Emergence and change are fundamental characteristics of existence 
>(or what I call experiential reality).  They are the consequence of 
>experiencing reality as a series of events that begin and end in a 
>time continuum.  That continuum is a dimension of experience itself, 
>not a property of an objective universe.

I agree if you are not talking about single series of events.  I see 
events mutually dependent on cause and conditions which also have 
mutually dependent cause and conditions.  This is why I am concerned 
by your use of the word 'finite'.

Time is interesting.  Time is relative.  The future doesn't 
exist.  The past is like an afterimage swept up into a pattern.  As 
far as I can understand, it is illusion.


>Ultimate reality is not a process of discrete objects coming into 
>existence and running their course through history.  That's the 
>intellectual illusion of human awareness.

I agree, although I might use the word conceptualization instead of 
awareness.


>I don't know what "Quality whose dynamics is spontaneous" is 
>supposed to mean.  Does spontaneity mean "dynamic" to you?

Yes, I see Dynamic as meaning a state of spontaneity.


>If Quality is ultimately "dynamic", why do we experience its 
>patterns as "static"?

To create a sense of stability where one cannot be assured.   It 
works most of the time, because we define the rules so we can play 
the game successfully.  The rules are defined to our 
specification.  If they work they become a pattern.  If they don't 
work or lose their functionality, they slide into oblivion (or 
history).  This is my interpretation.


>You said you "regard time as a static-pattern-of-value overlaid onto 
>experience."  Can you explain how experiencing things and events in 
>sequence is static?

A pattern seems to be a static-making mechanism.  A tree, for 
instance, has a long process of growth with many attributes and 
aggregates.  While a static pattern of 'tree' will differ from person 
to person depending on past experience, on the most superficial level 
there is shared pattern of what is a tree.  And on a superficial 
level we just overlay this basic shared pattern of tree onto our 
experiencing a tree.  We impose the finite where none exist.  Am I 
making sense?

>And can you give me an example of what you call a Dynamic Quality 
>experience?  (Kindly avoid Pirg's infamous "hot seat" analogy.)

A dynamic experience is one without thought.  You are experiencing 
and reacting without thinking.  I don't know what else to say.  I've 
had brief little moments in all kind of everyday occurrences.  It's 
without analysis.  It's spontaneous.  More likely when I paint, but 
once while driving on a curvy, country road.  It was incredible.  But 
these are a few moments, not a steady stream.



>>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.
>
>Do you accept the dictionary definition?  "Finite: 1.a) having 
>definite or definable limits;  b) having a limited nature of 
>existence; 2. completely determinable in theory or in fact by 
>counting, measurement or thought; niether infinite nor 
>infinitesimal."  (Incidentally, I agree totally with the above statements.)

If you are using the terms 'discrete' and 'finite' as indicating that 
their are objects that have independent existence from their own 
side, i disagree.  Otherwise, there seems to be agreement.



>>IF ESSENCE IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO HUMAN BEINGS, HOW IS ESSENCE 
>>ACCESSIBLE TO YOU AND YOUR THEORY???
>
>A theory in the absence of available proof is a 
>hypothesis.  Theories are what philosophers construct to account for 
>what is not empirically evident. My theory of Essence is supported 
>by the logic that "nothing can come from nothingness".  Man, value, 
>difference, and physical reality are either the effects of an 
>infinite regression of causes (which is illogical) or they are 
>derived from a uncaused source.  I have opted for the latter, not 
>only because it gives my ontology a solid metaphysical foundation 
>but because it suggests a logical purpose for man's existence as a 
>free agent of Value.

I cannot agree to logical purpose or primary purpose or any kind of 
purpose.  You can create a hypothesis, but it would be 
speculation.  I do not know, so I try to be aware of the present 
experience.  That's good enough for me.



>>Yes, I agree that the value experienced is relative.  But no 
>>things, only events, processes and static patterns of value.
>
>"Things" are really events or processes, if you consider that they 
>are substantiated by atomic particles or energy bundles in 
>motion.   And even your "static patterns of value" are subject to 
>emergence, change, and dissolution.  Again, all of existence is a 
>dynamic system.

I don't think you need to go to atomic particles or energy bundles to 
understand that all is process.  I am beginning to wonder how I ever 
thought otherwise.

Thank you Ham.  I appreciate the opportunity to explain my 
point-of-view.  There seems to be places where our understanding overlaps.


Marsha



.
_____________

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