[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Ham,

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

>
>  [Ham]:
>
>> You are stating propositions that contradict my ontology.
>>
>
> [Mark before]:
>
>> No, this was just a sidetrack, to play around with perspectives.
>>
>
> I'm a literalist, so you'll have to tell me when you're playing with me and
> when you're serious.
>

[Mark]
It was a serious attempt to get another perspective.  The intention wasn't
to contradict.

>
>>
> If Quality is primary we don't need Essence!  Would it make you happier if
> we call Essence Quality?
>

[Mark]
No let's stick to your Essence there is way to much contradiction in this
forum concerning Quality.  The point was that both could possibly point to
the same thing.  But as I read ahead, I can drop that for now.


> According to Pirsig, Quality divides (or is divided) into patterns.  That
> makes it differentiated in my book.  You're right, of course, that
> Sensibility/Otherness represents a division.  But it's a division by
> nothingness, which makes it phantasmagoric (a phenomenon of appearance) as
> opposed to real.  How can observation by a non-entity confirm a substantive
> universe?  The appearance we accept as physical reality is only a
> fractionated image of Essence's value.  It comes and goes like a flickering
> candle.
>

[Mark]
Yes, even in the so called Pre-intellectual awareness it is fractionated by
our senses.  I am sure there are many more than 5, but I won't get into
seeing dead people for now.  As humans we have a very limited appraisal of
all that is present.  Very limited. I like the term phantasmagoric even if
it seems like hand waving.  If nothing divides I would rationally think that
there is no division.  This may be the case in your ontology.  The term real
has some fuzzy connotations.  How about if we use the word Complete?

>
> [Ham]

All the order and symmetry that (we imagine) exists in this world of
> appearances is but a finite representation of the essential "design".  You
> can call THAT "Quality" if you wish; I can find no word to adequately
> describe it. WE impose the grandeur of that design, along with our own
> nothingness, on the sensory data that comes to us through experience.  The
> "material world", in other words, is a valuistic synthesis of cognitive
> sensiblity, organic sensation, and metaphysical nothingness.  Only the Value
> is Real.
>

[Mark]
Ok, I will limit Quality to that for now.  After man is only the measure of
all things he measures.  And I would agree, we create the grandeur of our
design.  I guess it could be worse.  I have lost you on Value being real
(can my suggestion of Complete work here?), I think it may be just a
semantic issue on my part.  I agree that due to the apparent shortness of
life, and the inability to use memory for what is before or after, we can
relate to a nothingness.  Memory seems to hold us to that.  I'm not sure if
this is essential in our creative process.  It depends on how detailed we
want to get.  But, this is an aside and my goal is to understand you as best
I can.

If Value is real, can that mean that Quality is real?  This may be somewhat
of a repetitive question so you don't have to answer it.  What I call
Quality does not necessarily agree with what many on this forum propose.  I
came up with mine before Pirsig published his.  I am trying to reify the two
(and I do not subscribe to dmb's interpretation of what reify means).  I am
trying to harmonize in a concrete way.  Quality is what separates two
things, it is a very real thing, whereas the appearance of the two things is
created by it.  The objects are trivial compared to the Quality dividing.
 Things do not contain Quality, they are an expression of its separation
powers (or force, or divine intervention, whatever you want).

>
>>  [Ham]
> Principia Cybernetica is still in business; it has simply changed its URL
> to http://pcp.lanl.gov/  There's an "annotation" of mine in that site
> under "Freedom", if you are of a mind to read it.  Just type this address:
> http://pcp.lanl.gov/Annotations/FREEDOM.11.html.
>
> Is "what is love" a real or a rhetorical question?  Yes, methinks it is due
> time to have your balls replaced.
>

[Mark]
It was a metaphor to playing tennis, and I was getting ready to serve.  New
balls are brought into the game as part of the rules when the old ones get
worn.  Using that metaphor I can say I get my balls replaced now and again.
 Using another metaphor I can say that I got them replaced when I decided to
marry.  :-) (smiley face is so that Marsha does not get on my case).  Thanks
for the updated reference.

I am going to return to our previous conversation and reply later.  I need
to refresh my memory on where we were.

>
> Cheers,
> 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
>