[MD] [Bulk] Re: The MOQ difference

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Thu Sep 30 11:02:52 PDT 2010 

p.s.  Not to worry about it.  I think you're a tuba.  Now back to sleep.   


On Sep 30, 2010, at 1:21 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER wrote:

> But in fact , Parsi fal,---Fal Parsi, ....Parsi is slang for Farsi in
> Persian, and i do believe that Mark is indeed , Farsi-rooted
> Or so to speak, Iranian-originating , probably islamic.
> So exit in advance if Ham thinks to convert him, <= exit
> 
> But i could be wrong!
> 
> 
> 2010/9/30 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The phrase "observation creates reality" is a little nonsensical
>>>>> unless one is trying to convey an image.  We could say that
>>>>> nothing exists without observation, but how would we know?
>>>>> One could just as easily say that "reality creates observation".
>>>>> If what you are saying is that no reality existed before your
>>>>> observation of it, then history itself has no meaning.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is important to distinguish between "reality" and "existence", Mark.
>>>> What we create via experience are images or patterns of being that
>> represent
>>>> the values on which we are focussed.  In totality these patterns
>> constitute
>>>> "our reality" as existents, or simply Existence.  But what we experience
>> as
>>>> reality is relational, transitory, and therefore illusory.
>>>> We have no direct knowledge of primary or ultimate Reality, nor any
>> reason
>>>> to deduce that it is divided, evolutionary, or "created".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I noticed you qualified your statement (#2) by relating
>>>>> Value to empirical reality.  Here you seem to be providing
>>>>> a definition by self referencing empiricism.  There is honestly
>>>>> no equation in that statement that provides any further
>>>>> insight into a metaphysical notion.  Yes, empiricism is defined
>>>>> as subjective, but for that you do not need to capitalize
>>>>> the V in value.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I capitalize the 'V' in value for the same reason that Pirsig
>> capitalizes
>>>> the 'Q' in quality.  Value is a realized aspect of Essence, not Reality
>>>> itself.  Even in the empirical world, Value is essential, although we
>> only
>>>> experience it differentially.
>>>> 
>>>> I would enjoy discussing Essentialism further, Mark, but am not sure
>> where
>>>> this is leading.  Since we're restricted to keeping these dialogues
>> within
>>>> the province of the MoQ, I suggest that you frame your questions so that
>>>> they address MoQ-related issues specifically.
>>>> 
>>>> Nice to hear from you again, Mark.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list