[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[MarshaV]

Hello Ham,


I understand static quality to be a relational aspect of quality:   
ever-changing, impermanent and relative.

And please, calling me a nihilist has as much substance as 
calling me pretty in pink.  

You are such a cutie!  


Marsha
 
 
 
 
 

On May 8, 2010, at 2:25 AM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Greetings Mary --
> 
> 
> [Marsha, previously]:
>> I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to discover the
>> falseness of static patterns(experience): not this, not that.   There
>> is no permanence to static patterns(experience) so in what sense could
>> they ever be true.  Could it be that patterns that last longer are
>> somehow more true?  But that would mean time is the measure of truth,
>> and time is itself a static pattern of value.
> 
> [Mary Replies]:
>> Yes.  We would do well to contemplate the idea that time itself
>> is a static pattern of value.
>> 
>> Through SOM we arrived at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>> This should tell us that there was a "time" when time was meaningless.
>> All the static patterns built up on top of this idea of time are false.
>> The foundation upon which these patterns are built is clay.
> 
> Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us only that beyond the sensible range of finitude (i.e., the quanta level) the more precisely the position of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum is. This principle demonstrates a limitation of experience, rather than qualifying the "time stream" as such.  Actually, Heisenberg himself discussed the possibility that behind our observational data might be a hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations.  He dismissed this conception as meaningless speculation because, as he said, "the aim of physics is only to describe observable data."
> 
> Classical Philosophy has given us the maxim that nothing can come from nothing.  If you believe this, then the space/time world of appearances ultimately alludes to a fundamental or True Reality.  Otherwise, you fall into the camp which rejects any reality as "true".  A system of interrelating things or "patterns" that depend on each other for their existence without a primary source describes the paradox of infinite regression -- a logical fallacy.
> 
> I'm not sure about you, Mary, but I fear that Marsha has succumbed to this nihilistic view.  She will try to deny it on the ground that she believes in 'Quality'.  But Quality (Value) can only be realized experientially, so it is no less a "pattern" than is the experiencing subject.  And, although Pirsig could have posited his 'DQ' as the Primary Source, thus providing his quality thesis with a metaphysical foundation, he chose not to.
> 
> I am firmly convinced that an "Absolute Essence" is the primary, underlying source of all appearances.  The Essentialist ontology follows from this conviction, and it explains "existence" as the affect of a negated sensibility experiencing reality (otherness) as Being divided by nothingness.  The mode of subjective awareness is dimensional in time and space; and while objective experience is relative and provisional, the Value from which it is derived is absolute and unconditional.  In a metaphysical sense, Value, Sensibility, and Truth are One in Essence.  Ultimately, difference and contrariety are transcended by eliminating the nothingness that separates them.
> 
> I realize this is a lot to digest in a posted message.  But it has long been my view that had Mr. Pirsig gone that extra step by making Quality a relational aspect of Reality, rather than reality itself, he would have avoided most of the confusion surrounding the MoQ.
> 
> Thanks for your indulgence, Mary, and best regards,
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___