[MD] The MOQ difference

[MarshaV]

Hi Andre,

I think from a Mahayana Buddhist point-of-view it is from a goes something like:
when this occurs, that occurs; when this doesn't occur, that doesn't occur.

   
Marsha 
 
 


On Sep 25, 2010, at 12:04 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> Personally i think , Ham, that "causation by preference" is David Bohm's
> work, and that Pirsig was enormously inspired by Bohm.
> 
> Interpreting Bohm's impressions on preferential states is not theft but
> science.
> It is you Ham, declaring that Pirsig's theory of causuation by
> preference,...etc, is Pirsig's and wrong.But i think Pirsig is correct , and
> Bohm is correct , the falsification to declare it as this projection you
> made, is a Hammification.
> 
> But i have to admit , The best lie's are covered with some truth, and the
> best liars are the ones selling the truth.
> 
> observation creates reality(as we observe it), but the observer is not
> reality(as the observer is part of reality).
> 
> 
> 2010/9/25 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
> 
>> Greetings Platt, Marsha, John and All --
>> 
>> On Sept 23 at 4:08 PM Platt wrote:
>> 
>> SOM axiom: "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so."
>>> 
>>> MOQ axiom: Everything is good or bad before thinking at all.
>>> 
>>> We can see what the MOQ is up against -- Pirsig vs. Shakespeare,
>>> a far out idea vs.conventional wisdom.
>>> 
>>> Do the levels get in the way of Pirsig's Copernican revolution?
>>> 
>>> Does he cater too much to SOM thinking?
>>> 
>> 
>> First of all, difference is the nature of existential reality; so there is
>> no "special difference" that applies to subject-object (SOM) experience.  As
>> for Dynamic Quality being divided into four distinct levels, that is
>> Pirsig's theory of "causation by preference", and it limits the MoQ to the
>> evolutionary process of scientific objectivism.
>> 
>> No offense to RMP, but of course I side with Shakespeare on the question of
>> values.  What is "good" or "bad" is man's judgment
>> (experiencing/thinking/feeling) based on his value orientation.  More
>> recently, astrophysicist John Wheeler noted: "...what we say about the
>> universe as a whole depends on the means we use to observe it.  In the act
>> of observing we bring into being something of what we see.  Laws of physics
>> relate to man, the observer, more closely than anyone has thought before.
>> The universe is not 'out there', somewhere, independent of us.  Simply put:
>> without an observer, there are no laws of physics."
>> 
>> I think he understates the case.  Not only are there no laws of physics,
>> there is no physical world without an observer.  A few days ago, Marsha
>> quoted a developer of quantum physics as saying: "Observations not only
>> _disturb_ what is to be measured, they _produce_ it."  If, as Pirsig wrote
>> [in SODV], "the observation creates the reality," and if the sense of
>> Quality is primary to objective experience, then two conclusions can be
>> drawn:
>> 1)  An observer (subject) is necessary for objects to exist, and
>> 2)  Quality (Value) is the essence of empirical reality.
>> 
>> Yes, Platt, this is "SOM thinking".  But we MUST think in SOM terms when
>> dealing with the differentiated world of objects and events.  More
>> importantly, from a metaphysical standpoint, we need to dispense with
>> difference when postulating Ultimate Reality.  The MoQ tries to straddle
>> both dimensions, using the same terminology to describe "static" and
>> "dynamic" phenomena, thus failing to break through finitude to an absolute
>> source.  And therein lies much of the confusion regarding patterns,
>> subjectivity, and intellect.
>> 
>> The pattern I've noted in recent posts is an attempt to deny both
>> objectivity and subjectivity and describe the world as if it could be
>> understood without observation.  That's like trying to explain time in a
>> world where nothing changes.  It makes no sense to deny the obvious; this
>> only complicates the issue and its exposition.
>> 
>> In a different thread, John pointed out another important concept that has
>> been slighted in the MoQ: Freedom.  If goodness is fixed to Quality in the
>> universe, we have no alternative but to experience goodness.  But we
>> experience the bad along with the good.  That's because Quality is only a
>> relative measure of goodness--which allows for free choice.
>> 
>> [John to Andre on 9/23]:
>> 
>>> A response to Quality can be good or bad, right?  You can harmonize,
>>> or be out of tune.  There is choice.
>>> 
>>> Good can exist with  freedom, because choice is as fundamental as value.
>>> If there is no choice, there is no good.
>>> 
>> 
>> Indeed, as I have argued previously, it is our CHOICE of value, not the
>> patterns we construct from it, that is fundamental to human existence.
>> 
>> Essentially speaking,
>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> parser
> 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


 
___