[MD] The MOQ difference

[118]

Hey Ham,
I have missed our discussions as well.  I was in a bit of a rut,
ontologically speaking (probably still am).  Yes, a handle to shape a
metaphysics, we'll see where it takes me...  I learn much more from
discussion than from reading and noodling.
Cheers,
Mark

On Thursday, September 30, 2010, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> Adrie,
>
> What does this "exit<= exit=exit<=" mean?
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2010, at 8:37 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:
>
>> exit<= exit=exit<=
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2010/9/30 Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
>>
>>>
>>> Greetings Mark --
>>>
>>> I see you have a new handle.  Where have you been keeping yourself?  (I
>>> miss your insightful queries.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it interesting how you use the metaphysics of physics
>>>> to support a metaphysics of Quality.  One metaphysics supporting
>>>> another.  Perhaps, as you say, they are both pointing towards
>>>> some Truth.  More than likely, they are both pointing the other
>>>> way to an ultimate source.  Both arise from the same place,
>>>> so it is no coincidence that you find justification for "non-physically
>>>> provable ontologies in the physical sciences.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Generally I don't use physics to support metaphysics, nor is it good
>>> practice.  The Quantum Enigma seems to be on everyone's mind right now, and
>>> with it the idea that Truth is ambiguous; so I thought someone should assign
>>> Science and Philosophy to their proper truth-seeking roles.  It is true,
>>> however, that we are all trying to solve an enigma that is beyond our
>>> finitely-limited range of experience.
>>>
>>>
>>> As you know, I have had a hard time with the evolutionary aspect
>>>> of Quality as it has been described.  Particularly since evolution
>>>> describes adaptation towards an environment.  What would the
>>>> environment governing the evolution of Quality be?  So, it is important
>>>> to move away from the physical concepts governing evolution
>>>> as these are only dead ends.  If indeed Quality governs evolution,
>>>> then we can talk metaphysics.
>>>>
>>>> Your subjective sense of Quality as Value minimizes the concept.
>>>> Yes, Value is one aspect, but not all of it.  We have had discussions
>>>> on your negation of Essence, and while it is an attractive concept
>>>> (in an ineffable way), it does imply duality.  My question would be,
>>>> What is the source of that duality?  How is it that the subjective splits
>>>> from the objective?  Your physical support in terms of us being part
>>>> of the equation we are describing is clear but circular.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Mark, I too have wrestled with the Quality concept, as quality (like all
>>> relative judgments) requires the sensibility of an observer.  To the degree
>>> that evolution generates species better fitted to their environment, I
>>> suppose one can say, euphemistically, that it is "governed by quality". (For
>>> human beings, at least, the results are salutary.)   But if evolution is a
>>> directed process with a "final goal", the proper term is Teleology. And
>>> teleology implies a Designer whose unknown objective is part of the enigma.
>>>
>>> As I have posted before, such metaphysical concepts
>>>> are encapsulated in the notion of State Vector Collapse,
>>>> where  probability is made "real". ...
>>>>
>>>> but suffice it to say that (in my opinion) duality only exists
>>>> in the form of social communication.  Without that mirror
>>>> of other, no duality exists.  Like you say, it is impossible
>>>> to avoid SOM in discussion, but that does not mean
>>>> that it is thus the only alternative.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I strikes me as strange when people define the sense of otherness as a
>>> "social" function.  To me this is a Pirsigian concept intended to circumvent
>>> subjects and objects.  Surely most of our experience deals with otherness,
>>> whether it's communication, manipulation, ingestion, exploration,
>>> construction, or just plain thinking.  When Descartes developed his Cogito,
>>> he was incommunicado, isolated from every external perception and belief,
>>> focusing only on pure thought.  It was enough to convince him that he
>>> existed, he was the knowing subject, and the existence of everything
>>> else--the 'content' of experience--was in doubt.
>>>
>>>
>>___
>
>
> 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
>