[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:27 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>>> Is a nerve firing really what creates our experience of trees? Is a 'nerve firing in our heads' what creates the 'trees'?  Let me repost a quote here from Pirsig and go into this in more detail:
>>>
>>> "This is difficult to untangle. Bohr’s “observation” and the MOQ’s “quality event” are the same, but the contexts are different. The difference is rooted in the historic chickenand-egg controversy over whether matter came first and produces ideas, or ideas come first and produce what we know as matter. The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community that has produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea! I think Bohr would say that philosophic idealism (i.e. ideas before matter) is a viable philosophy since complementarity allows multiple contradictory views to coexist."
>>>
>>> So, 'nerve's firing in our heads' is more 'matter'.   They are no more real than the trees we experience which cause those nerve's firing in our heads.  The MOQ says that where these ideas of 'trees' come from isn't random or just imaginary however.  The MOQ says that it is a *high quality* idea to think that the trees and nerve firings exist and that we give these trees and nerve firings names.  But what the MOQ reminds us is that really this is just an *idea*; like all other ideas which can be ranked based on how good they are.
>>>
>>> What do you think about this?  Is what we call 'trees' actually 'nerve firings', or are the 'trees', something else?
>>
>> Dan:
>> Please read the Lila's Child quote again, more carefully this time.
>> Quality comes first, the sense of value. Our ideas grow from this. But
>> this isn't to say matter doesn't exist. Of course it does.
>>
>> Now, read what you just wrote, David: "They are no more real than the
>> trees we experience which cause those nerve's firing in our heads."
>>
>> Aren't you are simply reiterating that matter causes the idea of
>> trees? That matter comes before ideas? That is NOT what RMP is saying
>> in his quote above. He says Quality comes first which produces our
>> ideas which produces what we know as matter. Nowhere does he say
>> matter doesn't exist or that it is only in our heads. This is part of
>> the confusion that arises as a consequence of an inadequate
>> understanding of the MOQ, and I know that you know better.
>>
>> I cannot help but note that the Quality of your dialogue here is
>> markedly lower than during our discussions. What's up with that?
>
>
> You're right, it looks like a key sentence of mine could have been better.  If I add the follow brackets does this make everything I wrote clearer?
>
> "They(nerve's firing in our heads) are no more real than the trees we experience which cause those nerve's firing in our heads."

Dan:
If the trees "cause" those nerves to fire, isn't that the same as
saying matter comes before ideas?

>
> So what I mean is that inorganic trees

Dan:
Biological trees? Or are these dead trees?

David H:

 and biological nerve firings are the same thing.  They are both
objective matter.

Dan:
Ah. Here is the source of my dis-ease. You seem to be saying our
thoughts (and remember, all biological patterns are inorganic but not
all inorganic patterns are biological; all social patterns are
biological but not all biological patterns are social; all
intellectual patterns are social but not all social patterns are
intellectual) are biological patterns here, as if someone is watching
the nerves in the brain fire. And while imaging devices may allow
researchers to do just that, what we know in every day experience is
the subjective thoughts arising in response (b values precondition a)
to the environment. Does that make sense?

David H:
> Unlike with SOM, there is no *need* to equate a nerve firing with an intellectual idea or vice versa.

Dan:
Not exactly sure what you mean by this...

>David H:
> Later on in my writing you will note that I say that matter is *isn't* imaginary.  I'm guessing the above sentence was the source of the confusion?

Dan:
No, not really. That part seems okay.

>David H:
>  As you know, all we need to do is place quality first, and then just keep the best true ideas.  That's it.  Nothing changes with our way of determining truth.  It's just its metaphysical position which changes.

Dan:
Right.

>
> Anyway, looking forward to your 'Jazz' response :-)

Dan:
I will see what happens with that and send it along should anything arise.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com