[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

Hi Adrie, also Platt and Marsha --

On 9/25 at 11:04AM 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. ...
>
> Observation creates reality (as we observe it), but the observer is not
> reality (as the observer is part of reality).

Actually I've never read Bohm and know nothing of his philosophy. 
"Causation by preference" is a phrase I made up to describe the process of 
evolution as it has been explained by the MoQists.  I'm not sure what is 
meant by your last statement.  If observation (i.e., experience) creates the 
reality of which the observer is a part, then what is the true Reality?  It 
would seem that you've constructed a dilemma chasing its tail.

Platt said:
> I think Marsha has excellent responses to your comments, Ham.
> I would just add that Idealism is absurd on its face. My cat UTOE's
> existence depends on many things, including his daily dose of Friskies
> Tuna and Whitefish Medley, but someone looking at him is not
> among those things, and everyone knows this.

Yes, I agree that Marsha has added more insight here than she probably 
realizes, but what's with this UTOE principle?  What I said (to Marsha) was 
that "the CHOICE of value...is fundamental to HUMAN existence," which does 
not include four-legged animals.  This doesn't mean cats don't have 
"preferences" but, rather, that free choice, like intellect, is a 
fundamentally human attribute.

Marsha responded:
> And isn't this CHOICE only available in a detached awareness?

Exactly, Marsha!  And it's why I maintain that individual awareness--the 
conscious self-- is a "negation" of Essence.  So why are you running away 
with the concept that, since existence is relative, Reality is "anything we 
want to make it" or "think it is"?

Solipsism is a dangerous foundation for philosophy, as others have pointed 
out, and it doesn't hold up metaphysically.  Such thinking overlooks the 
fact that what we experience is based on our perception of Value, which 
represents our relation to (i.e., affinity for) the essential Source.  It is 
Value that is absolute, not our Choice of its relational manifestations. 
All the principles and laws of an ordered universe are derived from 
Essential Value.  This is what gives the experiential world the coherence 
and intelligent design that satisfies our emotional and intellectual 
sensibilities.

Despite these conceptual faults, I'm generally pleased at the course the MD 
is now taking.  I think it has opened some new vistas which will round out 
RMP's thesis with a more workable and comprehensible ontology.  Ultimately 
this could lead to a new kind of  "pragmatism" that even William James would 
have found commendable.  (But this may be overly optimistic.)

Anyway, thanks for all your "free thoughts".

Essentially yours,
Ham