[MD] Fw: The Quality of Free Will

[Ham Priday]

On Sun, 7/31/11 at 6:47 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:


> Hi Ham and All,
>
> In S/O metaphysics existence is divided into REAL
> EXISTENCE and INTENTIONAL EXISTENCE.
> Such a division depends upon the intervention of a CREATOR
> of infinite capabilities, in order to verify the infinite and finite
> existence of the logic of religion.  DQ/SQ is a more logical
> division of existence paving the way for evolution as the
> arbiter for different perceptions of reality in existence.

A few comments ...

I don't know where you people get the idea that the S/O precept of existence 
is "metaphysical".  Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which deals 
with ultimate reality, specifically in terms of ontology and cosmology.  As 
such, it encompasses both relational existence and Absolute Reality.  A more 
"logical" division would be "Experiential Reality" and "Fundamental 
Reality", or, as I define it, Existence and Essence.

"Intervention" is an inadequate and misleading term for the Creator, usually 
implying a divine or anthropomorphic Being who "rules over" his creation. 
This, indeed, is a religious dogma inconsistent with traditional 
metaphysics.

In no way is evolution an "arbiter" of perception.  Arbitration, 
discernment, or judgment is the exclusive function of a sensible agent. 
Evolution is not a conscious agent but simply the precept (based upon the 
space/time mode of experience) that creation is a temporal process.

> Debate about belief systems cannot be verified in experimental
> logic. There is no way for a finite being to experience infinite
> existence.  There can be no metaphysics for S/O Existence,
> but only an unverifiable belief system.

I completely agree with the above statement.

> Pirsig wanted to overcome this bone of contention and embraced
> the metaphysics in which the first split is between Dynamic
> (undefined) and Static (defined) reality in existence.  Existence is
> existence.
>
> Pirsig envisioned a single definition for existence, and embraced
> evolution as the explanation of reality by the perception of
> different levels in existence.  DQ is indefinable yet perceptual
> reality, SQ is definable conceptual reality.  This mirrors experience
> and ends the debate about natural, supernatural realities.  DQ is
> indefinable not supernatural, and the religious wars in history are
> shown to follow the meanderings of the irrational metaphysics
> of S/O.

Again, there is no "metaphysics" of S/O that I am aware of.  (You just 
denied it in the preceding paragraph.)  No doubt Pirsig wanted to overcome 
many traditional belief systems, but arbitrarily assigning different levels 
to existence simply to "mirror experience" doesn't achieve this.  Nor does 
splitting existence into Dynamic and Static realities.  There is nothing 
inherently "indefinable" in the former, and nothing particulary "conceptual" 
in the latter.  Empirical existence is, in fact, characteristically 
"dynamic" in its natural processes, while there is no more logical 
justification for positing what is indefinable as "dynamic" than calling it 
"supernatural".

Thanks for the expose, Joe.  It's a thoughtfully prepared defense of the 
MoQ.

Speaking for myself,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 7/30/11 10:08 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels.  But 
>> WHY?
>>  This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let 
>> me
>>  count the ways".  Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic 
>> attraction
>>  more insightful or comprehensible?
>>
>>> Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you
>>> don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no".
>>> "Oh My Stars!" is so much more real!
>>>
>>> A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the
>>> evaluation of a description of evolution.
>>
>> Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of 
>> related
>> things and events.  Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I
>> submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as 
>> the
>> primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an
>> evaluation of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static 
>> patterns,
>> conventions, causes and effects.  This not only avoids having to explain 
>> complex >> and largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it 
>> affords a
>> conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology.