[MD] Uncertainty

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Mati:

You've put the problem of adopting the MOQ in a nutshell. The problem, 
as you so succinctly put it, is "nobody feels imprisoned by SOM at its 
core, and naturally use the context of 'I' in the subjective realm to 
account the world around us."

Bulls-eye!

I would simply add that the reason we see the world from a subjective 
perspective and don't feel its imprisonment is our overwhelming instinct 
to survive, reaching all the way back to this first squirming amoeba and 
thus a force as powerful as gravity. So reality revolves around "I," the 
subject. "To see the world in a grain of sand and eternity in a wildflower" 
is a wonderful thought, but it won't put a roof over my head or food on 
the table. To most people, "let's get real" means the latter. Reality then 
possesses as much variety as there are living creatures, being whatever 
is necessary to sustain a creature's individual life. Reality for a worm is 
different than reality for a bat. The point of the MOQ is that regardless of 
these differing "realities," value motivates all subjects great and small is 
thus fundamental. Or so I conclude.

But, I could be wrong.

Thanks for a great post.

Regards, 
Platt     


On 8 Sep 2009 at 18:44, KAYE PALM-LEIS wrote:

> Marsha,
> 
> You asked,
> > I really do wonder what it must be like when you are immersed in Quantum
> > theory and really believe it is "real"?
> 
> I believe your question is closely aligned with a key question that
> isn't asked often enough and IMO is a center fulcrum of the discussion
> related to MOQ, intellect and SOL, "Is it real?" . Bo mentioned that
> "This "what is it like to be ..." is  another conundrums that SOM
> imposes....." This is true but I think it is so important to
> understand that this vital question of, "is it real" is what started
> the whole intellect business and got us to where we are.
> 
> I am reminded in ZMM when Pirsig writes about Sylivia's observation
> about the people on the road. "They look so lost".  I have reread that
> chapter and thought Pirsig directly connected this question of "what
> is real" and people feeling lost. I couldn't find it. The point he
> does get at is is that for the most part people don't ask that
> question about if it is real because the answer is somehow lost in
> objective and subject world, a world they know so little about but
> impacts them so much.  As mention many times before I am in agreement
> with Bo's SOL idea.  One of the other questions, is when intellect
> came into play.  This is where Pirsig notes that Arisitotle S/O split
> as a likely period of time when intellect is recognized. When I would
> read about the early Greek philosophers, they too were asking the same
> question about what is real.  It is the essential metaphysical
> question.  Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus,
> Empedocles,Anaxagoras and other Greek philosophers of the time were
> asking that very question, what is real.  This was a time when the
> social level dominated the world and if you asked somebody if
> something was real they could only really defer to the social
> constructs of the day, their gods to answer the those questions.
> These Greek philosophers intuitively knew that that didn't seem to
> make sense. There was an objective world that seemed separate from the
> social order of things.  Yet.... they didn't know how to explain
> reality that was beholden to the social order of the time.  Now
> Aristotles proposes the S/O split.  It is fairly neat metaphysical
> construct and both the subjective and objective realities can be
> accounted for.  I know that SOM has gotten a bad rap and from a
> metaphycial perspective it certainly had its short comings, Yet for
> 2500 years it has served us so well until the obvious metaphysical
> limitations where identified and not ignored.
> 
> The issue with SOM is that it did a realitively good job capturing a
> lot of what was real, but there was a lot that SOM couldn't capture,
> namely quality.  That was the struggle and burden that Pirsig took on
> and provided us with MOQ.  MOQ is a totally a different Metaphysical
> perspective that clarifies the world around us and could handle the
> question of the reality of quality.  One of the problems that MD seems
> to understand is that fundamental difference between MOQ and S/O (SOM)
> in the context of intellect.  Bo's constantly reminds us, almost to
> the point of nausium, that when we fail to understand that MOQ and S/O
> (SOM)  are metaphysically different worlds, this is often the culprit
> of SOM.  When we cry foul that MOQ and SOM are both intellect, we
> forget that comes from the subjective prospective that was born from
> SOM.  MOQ liberates us from that SOM point that goes nowhere. The crux
> seems to be that nobody feels really imprisoned by SOM at its core,
> and naturally use the the context of "I" in the subjective realm to
> account the world around us.  That is ok until start asking questions
> like, "is it real".  Is quality real?   Sure it is, and we start from
> our subjective realm that was born from SOM to intuitively answer the
> question.  But soon the question gets bogged down in its (SOM)
> limitations.  The next question is "Intellect" real?  Yup.... MOQ says
> it is real, we basically know it is real but we seem to start from the
> same subjective realm, born from SOM,  to answer the question.  Just
> like quality the question, it gets bogged down for the same reason.
> We tend to rectify this question with "thinking"(process) or "thought"
> (product) from a subjective perspective as an answer to the question
> of intellect.  We need to step away from the subjective realm and
> approach it from a strictly metaphysical realm, devoid of the
> subjective tethers of SOM to really see and understand what is going
> on. Bo seems to try to cut those tethers for us, but for each one he
> seems to cut another appears.  Hmmmm...... a thankless job.  Good
> thing he sees this as his passion and not a job.
> 
> And a final point is that MOQ gives us the dignity to ask the question
> of, "is it real" and provide us a better foundation to answer the
> question.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> Mati