[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,

I went to bed last night thinking about your modeling.  And thinking
about my conversation with Ham (which has degenerated to naught).  And
wondering what is going on with this conversation, which seems to be
headed down the same tube.  Communication between individuals is so
hard...  But it does work.  I don't know why this doesn't seem to have
the grounding effect on others that it has for me.  Anyway, last night,
I peeked back at the end of Lila (a couple pages before the dead-end):

"What was significant, Phaedrus realized, was that John had
distinguished the dog according to Quality, rather than according to its
substance.  That indicated he considered Quality more important."

The dog didn't turn into a model.

Pirsig didn't write, what was significant, Phaedrus conceptualized...' -
he wrote REALized

John didn't 'create' an underlying 'reality' (named dog), but
'distinguished' it (by quality rather than substance)

Quality wasn't an earth-shattering perspective changer, it was subtle;
it just sharpened reality up.  If quality is merely a model to you, I
suggest you think of that as mental 'substance', and consider that there
is something more important behind it.  This
something is to help distinguish better, not to make you loose yourself
in meaninglessness.

and below:


> [Mark]
> Perhaps I am saying model too much.  Another word is interpretation, or
> reality, or how it seems, or understanding, or concept, or the way things
> are, etc.

[Tim]
Mark, I'm pretty sure we are on different pages (but I can't be sure). 
Model : reality :: how it seems : the way things are.  This is how
MEANING comes in: by relating.  If you consider it all the same there
can be no relation, and therefore no meaning.  If you have lost meaning
I suggest you have lost the capacity for distinction.  If you have lost
that you have lost yourself.  Find yourself and you can find meaning. 
If you cannot find yourself, try finding someone else.  Have your models
killed me?

> [Mark]  By saying you are falling to earth, you are creating a model
> of what is happening, that is how you encapsulated it into a concept.  If
> this is real to you, it is because you have conceptualized it.  The underlying
> reality is what you create.

[Tim]
Mark, I understand that you cannot know me.  I understand if you say
that you have a concept of me, and a model of me.  But is that just a
model inside a model?  Because if it is, someone would be just as
justified making a model inside a model that would allow them to do
unmentionable things to you because you wouldn't constitute a valuable
part of reality in their model, but only a model.  Am I?

your model has to do something with that question.  What?  Do you go
with endless model within endless model within endless model...? 
Doesn't that then become something solid in itself?

You say, "the underlying reality is what you create".  I say, The
underlying reality and I are intertwined, somehow.  it permits me at
least.  I can't create something unless I am.  are you saying that you
are the metaphysical fundament?  That Pirsig got it wrong: that he
should have said: Mark creates quality, everything follows upon Mark,
etc. and etc.?

I feel as if you are at the bottom of this metaphysical abyss, if you
are where I am thinking you are, and you have reached this boundary I
call the impossible, and because it is solid you think there is
something real behind it, but since it morphs to everything you do to
it, you think you are creating the reality behind it.  I think this is
where Ham is leading me too.  But that is where there is nothing; it
cant be reached; you are right to be wary of 'reality' if that is where
you are.  THe impenetrability of that barrier, the inaccessibility of
nothingness --- get out!  Put an anchor there and say it is anchored to
something, because it can't be anchored to nothing.  IF that is all the
further we can go, it is far enough for me; it is far enough for
meaning; and I think it is far enough for anyone like me.  Isn't this
real?

> [Mark]  Now, I am not saying you can walk through
> walls if you believe in such a model, although that is where some people tend
> to go with this notion, the brain is somewhat limited by what it can
> conceive of (another model).

[Tim]
it can also conceive and end to the modeling!  (I just don't know if it
can connect the two)

> [Mark]  And I am in full agreement with you idea of harmonization.

[Tim]
I beg your pardon, but I don't think so.  Such harmonization requires
starting ...  where?

> 
> [Mark]
> Yes, but your understanding of it takes it beyond that and calls it
> something.  That is what the brain does.  Relation is subjective.  A rock
> does not see the relation you see.

[Tim]
maybe your brain sees something (relationally) that you don't!  I am
suggesting, I think, that there is some harmony to be achieved between
you and your brain, which is being hindered by your focus on models.  If
you tie yourself to the 'it' your brain NEEDS, but you tell your brain
that you don't know what it is (certainly because it is always new, even
if every other reason were to eventually become obsolete), well, this is
how harmony seems to work for me.

if you look at the particular reflection 'it' gives you when you ask it
to, you will think it subjective.  If you think that the 'it' gives
reflections to any 'I' who ask it to give reflections, you will think
that it does teh same thing for you as for the rock that asks.  if
everyone must come to somewhere, why not recognize the unity in that
experience, rather than the subjectivity of the particular individual
experience?  and if the experience is truely subjective, why not focus
on the unity that is in that flawlessness?

> 
> [Mark]
> I understand.  The interpretation of Quality can be such that it fits
> your model.

[Tim]
Mark, if every model can come at quality and get data to support it,
which is what you seem to be suggesting, aren't you describing an
absolutely fair (moral) process?

> [Mark]  This is how one can harmonize.

[Tim]
this may be telling!  My idea of harmony requires more than one.


> [Mark]  Faith and Quality are not exclusive if that is what you mean.  The term miracle is overblown to mean
> something that defies explanation.  But explanation is nothing more than agreement.
>  One can see everything as a miracle, in fact it is.  There is no
>  underlying explanation for anything.

[Tim]
I think you are again elevating yourself to being the source of quality,
and then saying that, since you are the fundament, you will negate all
hope for an underlying explanation for anything... and by so doing you
have harmonized you with your model of you... to produce: what?  a
perfectly useless circular reference?  a nothingness?  A you devoid of
meaning?

Or!  A perfectly fair barrier which would prove a very useful thing to
you... if you would use 'it', rather than the nothing you are after, and
use it as a forum for interacting with other I's.

> [Mar]  We explain things in a bubble created by
> circular references, in my opinion.

[Tim]
yes, explanation may never be perfect.  But if you tell me you just
enjoyed petting a big furry, good dog... that damned infinite separation
between I's doesn't seem wholly impenetrable.  And when Marsh says she
enjoys a CUP of tea on her cool porch, I know that she has CARIED a
warm, stimulating liquid with her, and she was glad it stayed contained
for her to do that.  Just because you don't see all this when you see
this meager 'IT' at the bottom of your abyss...  How are you gonna
conclude that 'IT' can't be the source?  Why are you gonna insist that
noone else can either?

> [Mark]  Something falls to earth because of gravity, how
> do we know it is gravity?  Because gravity makes things fall to earth. 
> We create concepts that have no underlying ground to them.  So gravity and
> falling to earth mean exactly the same thing, and we have not explained
> anything, just created new words that equal each other.

[Tim]
Mark, this is really enough!  Above you said "we explain things in a
bubble..." but you ended with "in my opinion".  Here you say, "WE create
concepts that have no underlying ground to them.", without such a
caveat.  Now I'm only joking now, but you are proposing this as the
absolute fundament!!!  Whatever you might come up with, there will be no
ground under it!!!  After this you go on to conclude all is relative. 
Now who is it who has remembered that he must leave some wiggle-room for
the unknown?  Your fundament is as absolute and rigid and as solid as is
(im)possible: nothing!!!  IS this where you want to hang your hat?  Is
it really here where you are going to say: there is no room for the
unknown?!  Is this the faithe you live?

that isn't quality.  Whether RMP's metaphysics is good enough or not, he
gives you an underlying ground.  And he gives us one that will allow I's
to interact.  If I know quality, and you know quality, and quality is
fair (moral), well then !!!!!


> [Mark]
> Yes, but it is different.  In fact is always changes; there is nothing
> permanent, even the notion of reality, if you don't want it to be.  It is
> more like an adventure in seeing.  I suppose that is my new reality (for
> now).

[Tim]
you say, "there is nothing permanent".  I think this is telling too: you
make 'nothing' permanent.  You do not want to think yourself the
fundament, but when you look at the fundament you see you.  What to do? 
Loose yourself or become the source. ????????

rather, something-is (the barrier preventing one from nothing).  Isn't
this a better solution?  Or have I only been playing in my own, solitary
field of thought (that is: if there is similarity between us, it is
totally random - and I mean TOTALLY: taht was your fundament: no
underlying ground).

Mark, you said, 'for now'...  I hope so too.  This seems to suggest that
you are not convinced that there is no underlying ground.  From where
will it come?

Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                          wherever you are