[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[Mary]

Hello Ham,

On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 1:25 AM
> 
> 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."
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I am no physicist, but I've always heard it meant that you can predict the
position of a particle or its speed at a point in time but you cannot
predict both - and the more accurate you get with one the less accurate you
are with the other.  I remember thinking when I first heard about it as a
kid that it was an astounding admission by physics.  Then years later when I
read Pirsig, it seemed to substantiate - even to the point of being
irrefutable by SOL - that the MoQ was right.  Everything is "not" just
subjects and objects.  Very exciting stuff to me.  Imagine!  A laboratory
physics experiment conducted under the highest standards of SOM that
disproves SOM.  Wow.

> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I take it you perceive DQ as 'nothing'?  I have no idea what DQ is, and
cannot ever hope to know, but I think it is greater than zero.

> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I think there is no such thing as 'nothingness' and no such thing as
'absoluteness'.

> 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.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
I see your point, Ham, but it doesn't hang together for me.  Quality is
Value and Value is DQ.  It is undefined, pre-experiential reality, so it
exists, but is not absolute.  I am not convinced of any absolutes.  If DQ
were absolute I'd have to worship it, wouldn't I?  I'd rather just
experience it.

Thanks,
Mary