[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:53 AM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> 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.
>

[Mark]
Let's drop the model analogy, it may be misleading.  At that point I was
trying to bring in an analogy from the world of science.  What I believe you
are quoting above is a difference in perception.  This would mean that the
dog has Quality, and does not exist as True.

All I can provide are little stakes that you can hold on to as you climb.
 I'll meet you at the top of the mountain, if you choose to climb.

[Tim]
> 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.
>

[Mark]
I think that Pirsig would disagree that it was not earth shattering.

[Mark]
As was written in ZMM, if one takes the perspective of Quality as opposed to
Truth, it can result in the formation of quicksand beneath one's feet.  The
end result is well described in the final chapters of ZMM and alluded to
throughout the book.  So ZMM (and Lila) attempt to construct a metaphysics
that can be arrived at through a variety of analogies or ways of looking at
things.  As such, it is always held at arms length and not fully realized as
THE reality.  We are looking at a possibility only.  We use out current
understanding to try to understand another.  As such the perspective remains
the same without entering into it.  I can be standing outside in the cold
and look into a warm restaurant and imagine what it feels like, but I must
go inside to know.

>
>
> [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]
Meaning must have a created foundation upon which to be realized.  I would
suggest that the Quality view is different from thinking there is a Truth
which underlies all.  The relation is through one of Quality.  Let's drop
the models for now because they can create an illusion of a picture.  They
are simply trying to convey another way of looking at things using the
current model of truth.  As such, they are just circles of current
perception observing another set of circles.  The idea is to jump from one
to another without loosing oneself in the process.

>
>
> [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?
>

[Mark]
The model symbolizes a world view.  As such, it cannot be isolated as a
model.  The models (or analogies) are just sentences pointing in a certain
direction.  View them as portals, not as entities.

[Tim]
> 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?
>

[Mark]
Sure endless models are possible, but not necessary.  You can think about
being happy, but that is much different from being happy.  Thinking about it
is the model, not the real thing.

[Tim]
> 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.?
>

[Mark]
No Pirsig did not get it wrong.  He may be explaining it slightly
differently from me, but the underlying reality is the same.  It is all in
what analogies or descriptions are used.  As Pirsig would say, there is not
Truth in the descriptions, only Quality.  Mine do not seem to be of high
quality to you, and that is my difficulty in these kinds of exchanges.

>
> 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]
I don't think it really matters if there is something Real behind it.  Such
a things brings in the notion of Truth which is only are derivative.  You
are correct in needing an anchor, it depends what you want to consider you
are anchoring too.  The metaphysics of Quality provides such a base.  Far
enough is as far as you need it to be, yes, this is real if you are
comfortable with it.  Don't go looking for things you don't need.  Need
arises when things do not seem quite right the way they are.  Metaphysics is
created to try to explain them and create something for the anchor to hold
on to.

>
> > [Mark previously]  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 previously]  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]
I don't think it requires starting anywhere.  It comes through experience
and feeling one's way.  To try to start somewhere will create an endless
regression of what happened before that starting point.  You will find that
there is nothing there to absolutely start with.  We are in the middle, the
point is to make that middle meaningful.

>
> >
> > [Mark previously]
> > 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.
>

[Mark]
Again, let's drop models, they are only useful for explanation, they have no
truth in themselves.  I do not think in terms of models unless I am trying
to explain something.  Distinguishing between what the brain as a whole
sees, and what my consciousness sees is a concept in psychology.  Many
subscribe to dynamic quality through this analogy.  In the end it may not
explain anything if it doesn't work for you.

>
> [Tim]

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]
Describing things as subjective is yet another model.  So, models within
models is where you are going with this.  Unity is another model as is
flawlessness.  The point is not to look at a model, but to look out from
one.

>
> >
> > [Mark previously]
> > 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]
It would seem that morality creates processes, it is not one in itself.

>
> > [Mark previously]  This is how one can harmonize.
>
> [Tim]
> this may be telling!  My idea of harmony requires more than one.
>

[Mark]
Yes, harmonize more than one process or model, if you will.

>
>
>  [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?
>

[Mark]
Being the source of is also a model.  We create the underlying explanation.
 You can keep looking for an underlying explanation, but in doing so, you
are creating it in your head.  I can think of worse things than being the
fundament of such an explanation.  This does not mean that other things do
not exist, only their explanation is created by us intellectually.

>
> [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]
There is no problem with enjoying a cup of tea.  If you want to explain that
enjoyment, you have to create something.  Doing and questioning such doing
are two different things.

>
>
> [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?
>

[Mark]
The idea of relativity has all sorts of problems associated with it, so I
prefer not to use it.  There is a real world out there.  We use that as
building blocks to create an understanding. This understanding is like
forming a constellation out of stars.  The constellation does not exist
outside of our perception of it.  I am not asking for a rigid foundation, I
am creating one.  It gives me much more freedom and meaning.  Some resort to
the Divine Ground.  That is fine with me since the divine is a useful
backdrop which has must meaning and security

[Tim]
> 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]
This is the paradox of language.  When I say nothing is permanent, I am
saying that such an idea is permanent.  No, I cannot loose myself, that has
been with me since birth.  It is about the only constant I can come up with.
 All the chemical in my body change all the time, so nothing that is
physical and comprises me is permanent, every brain cell is different and
changing all the time.  A good analogy is that we are a whirlpool.  The
water in the whirlpool changes all the time, but the whirlpool persists as a
happening.

>
> [Tim]

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?
>

[Mark]
>From how I create it.

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