[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
you have me backwards,
Tim



> > [Mark]
> >
> Certainly any metaphysics must be in some kind of agreement with other
> disciplines that are accepted as meaningful.  Physics in no exception.
>  Providing complete credibility for a metaphysics using physics is
>  another
> thing.

[Tim]
You have me backwards I think.  I am wondering if, by using our language
- here in the metaphysics of Quality - by formally looking at our
understanding of teh self, of the absolute essence, of process leading
to process leading to process, of Dynamic Quality: if by formally
following through in our precise discussions, does a physics fall out of
this, and this alone, of its own.  I am wondering if there is not in
fact a physics inherent in a good metaphysics.  How that physics might
compare to the (objective) physics of the physicists is their bag.  RMP,
and I think we here, at least for the most part, think that there is
something to this concept of quality, which is lacking in the 'objective
physics', and which serves as a better static foundation for being.  I
am wondering if we, from this side, are better equipped to bridge the
abyss (or surmount the peak)!  Or are we totally isolated?  For my part,
I think that there is something to this suspicion I now have.


> [Mark]  
> Rather than traveling through a valley and uncovering clues, it might be
> more appropriate to consider metaphysics as an adventure in building.
>  Whether such a building can provide unanimous agreement has yet to be
> established.  The purpose of such a structure is to model the nature of
> things in a way that provides answers.  Such answers must be applied to
> the
> inner nature of man as well as the outer nature.  The answers are agreed
> upon concepts which are universal to man.  The notion that the nature of
> man
> is somewhat universal at a certain level is not out of the question.

[Tim]
so it is here that I might say: we have been gathering all teh materials
for the building - but, can we come up with a blueprint?

 
> [Mark] For an intellectual structure to model such a thing is not impossible,
> but
> takes a lot of work and agreement.  If there is something about the great
> religions that they all may have in common, such a thing should be
> considered.  Huxley provided a book on this, but, in my opinion it was
> not
> wide enough.  It is certainly a task too big for one person.  There are
> departments of comparative religions that exist, but many kinds of
> philosophies need to be incorporated.  It is my opinion, that the
> internet
> (perhaps in its next incarnation) will be of great use in developing a
> metaphysics.  As you know language is a barrier and there have been
> philosophers who say it is insurmountable due to the inherent nature of
> language.  Who knows?  It is also my belief that we are far behind the
> metaphysics that was created several thousand years ago in India.  I have
> been told that Sanskrit was heavily loaded with metaphysical concepts,
> many
> more than we have today.

[Tim]
I don't know how to compare our metaphysics to the ancients.  I do
recognize that they were great thinkers in this regard.  They didn't
have teevee and the internet, and video games, and etc. to distract
them.  But I'm not ready to bow before them.  And I don't think you are
either.

 
> [Mark] The nice thing is that metaphysics is only for those that need to think
> about such things.  In my opinion, metaphysics should never be used for
> social order or politics.  It has no place there.  This may be contrary
> to
> some ideas of the MOQ when it subscribes to levels of control, but, so be
> it.

[Tim]
I can't say never...  but I certainly think your distaste for directly
applying metaphysics to politics, outside of your own personal
perspective, is warranted.

> [Mark]  I think it should remain descriptive and not become intrusive.  In
> this
> way, it can coexist with religions and such.  In a way, metaphysics could
> be
> considered a form of priesthood.  People who have questions can have them
> answered and go on their way.  This was written about quite well by
> Herman
> Hesse in The Glass Bead Game, which I read a translation of.

[Tim]
wooohoooo, finally a reference to someone I have read!  (Actually, I had
read a bit of Cassirer too, interesting story.)  I was supremely
disappointed by teh glass bead game, so I don't think I got out of it
what I should ahve gotten out of it; in fact I even liked 'Roshalde'
better than it - amongst others.

anyway, what you express in this paragraph is my fear.  If metaphysics
cannot build a bridge to either physics or society (politics), then at
best it will be a 'priesthood'.  Or, am I missing something?  Anyway, if
this is the case I don't know what value the 'answers' will have. 
Perhaps they will be as clear as those given by the glass bead game.

Anyway, my suspicion is that metaphysics (and one very close to teh MoQ)
will provide an undergirding for physics, some time.  It wont constitute
physics per se because it will be unfalsifiable, but it will be highly
enticing because physics will have fallen out of it.  Something that
produces such fruit will be hard to ignore.  I think that it will be
here that metaphysics (not meta-religion) connects to 'faithful' living.
 And of course, since the utter present is always unknown, the ability
for metaphysics, physics, and any religion / spiritualism to order
society will be as tenuous as it is now (and to the extent that it is
less tenuous in practice... it will be more difficult to improve). 
Anyway, this is my suspicion, and I was wondering how others here might
say it - I have presumed, rather felt, that you have something similar
you might say.
 
> So yes, concrete support is good.  Science always changes, so any support
> coming from there will change.  It is not a good idea to expect a long
> living metaphysics to be based too heavily on science.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 

[Tim]
so you see, you have me backwards.  I am wondering if a proper (close
enough, workable, ...) metaphysics might TELL physics where its
foundations lie.  I am wondering if science, by trying to go backwards,
is trying to hit a bullseye from an impossible distance, but if we, by
grabbing hold of that bullseye directly, might bring it to their front
porch.  I am wondering if we, by not concerning ourselves with objective
physics, might actually have, ripening in our thoughts, ... 

In all this precise discussion (and especially because I have this
perspective on objective physics taht the ancients didn't have), I think
that it is not too ridiculous to think that there is something to this
suspicion.  But I also wonder if I am chasing my tail, like one of those
math problems where you jump into a redundancy, work feverishly, and
eventually show 0=0.

The thing about a 'long living metaphysics' is that it is independent of
time, culture, everything.  If you hit it you hit.  There is also a
legitimate question as to whether it is a good thing to hit it, or if it
is a good idea to try, but we are all here, after all.  I think the
dynamism of the utter present, and especially when combined with my
metaphysical thoughts: that I am protected from myself, that the
absolute essence cannot know iteslf, but it is trying, etc. - should
reduce this fear to naught but a admonition to humility (and dynamic
morality through the process).

or else, if someone could please shoot me down... put me in my place... 
It would be great to know that I am being ridiculous...  But what are we
doing here?  We all sense value, right?

I've gotten a bit excited at times here, and even before, when reading
ZAMM and Lila, but I bring myself back down to earth, and the feeling
that there is something to this persists.  Is it there because ... well,
the reason is probably not so simple, but in large, because: who is
going to spend such efforts in this thin air?

Is the fruit here?  And merely because fruit seekers never thought that
valuable fruit could be found here?  Conversely, many physicist are
hotly pursuing grand theories of everything.  They too think that there
is something like this to be found.  IF they find it, won't they be
telling us that we have done our jobs wrong?  OR if they confirm us,
won't they be telling us that we were silly not to pick the fruit that
was lying more in our camp than theirs?  Unless, of course, the picking
of such fruit would be immoral; but I have been pouring over that too,
and I am unafraid there: discussions welcome.

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be