From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 16:15:46 BST
Ham:
>> My personal opinion is that Pirsig needed to make his
>> Quality concept fill the gap left when he rejected theism; that is,
>> he needed a primary source to replace God as the teleological
>> force that moves the cosmos toward "betterness". His solution
>> was to stretch Quality far beyond its common definition,
>> positing it as "the primary empirical reality of the world" and
>> infusing it with a universal consciousness, yet declining
>> to call it the primary source. I'm on record as stating that I
>> consider this a mistake.
This is not what I am aiming for. I don't speak of a universal consiousness, or consiousness as source. My point is that there is no fundamental difference between the one molecule experiencing another molecule, and a human being experiencing an emotion.
Experiencing, or valueing (or whatever name you like to give it) is the creator of our reality. Consiousness is a result of it, not the source of it.
>In theology, creation and evolution are regarded as a "Divine process" that
>propels and molds the universe in accordance with God's plan.
<snip>
>Teleology stands in contrast to philosophical naturalism,
<snip>
>Philosophical naturalism and
>teleology investigate the existence or non-existence of an organizing
>principle behind those natural laws and phenonema. Philosophical naturalism
>asserts that there are no such principles. Teleology asserts that there are.
<snip>
>I think Robert Pirsig wanted to gain the acceptance of both factions,
>suggesting a doctrine whereby his Quality not only replaces a deity as the
>primary source (i.e., Creator) but is also the causal force behind
>evolution.
<snip>
>The major flaw, as I see it, is the absence of man's role as a
>self-conscious individual. The connection between the individual and the
>source is virtually non-existent. Whatever teleology or purpose is implied
>in this philosophy doesn't concern the individual -- it's assumed to be a
>function of a "universal ethesis" of which man is only a biological
>outgrowth or phase of Nature.
A couple of thoughts:
I choose not to label myself, I don't completely recognize my own believes in any of the systems you've described.
I would agree to the following:
DQ is Essence
Man is not the just the sum of his cells
Consiousness is not a product of the brain.
A human can experience his body. This means the body is an other if I see it correctly.
A human can experience his thoughts. This means his thoughts are an other.
A human can't generally experience other human's thought, there are however people called mediums that are more sensitive in that area.
All this experiencing leads to the follwing: humans believe their reality consists of objects that are experiencable and thoughts that are produced by the brain.
Science has come to a point that they say, reality does not consist of particles. They've dug so deep into our experiencable reality, that they've arrived at the core of experiencing, finding out that indeed the experiencing process is at least a fundamental part of this reality. It may well be that what they've arrived at are building block's that no longer have a mind/matter distinction. They can't say it's matter, they can't say it's mind. They can't say a whole lot about it. (Multi dimensional strings, I mean.... that's way beyond our reality experience, that's a mathimatical representation of reality with not a lot of meta-physical usability).
There's something... with a whole lot of different manifestations but with one thing in common. Experience makes it real, or Valueing makes it static. Our intellect says it's different levels, it's matter or mind, it's biological or social.
One manifistation may well be consiousness, this may be a complex, evolved maifestation. Another one may be a human body, also very complex and evolved. A human body and consiousness mix very well because the body provides a lot of tools for the consiousness.
Is there a direction of this evolution? I think there is.
Is this directedby a 'God'? I don't think so.
Everything there is is a manifestation of what? of Essence. Somehow we all remember we were part of it, and we have free will. We can coose like a Zen-buddhist to sit and detach (or de-experience, or de-value). Or we can choose to add values, value money, value social rules, value society, value happiness.
We make the discision, we're the directors, and we're part of Essence, or the source.
>As an Essentialist, I understand man as more than a complex evolutionary
>development. The human individual is a "special creation" in the sense that
>he can not only separate himself from the otherness that constitutes his
>reality, but can appreciate the value in that relationship. Value doesn't
>arise from Value: it requires a source that transcends all differences --
>the "perfect embodiment" of value. That, my friend, is Essence.
Value the way it's most commonly used is ment to be a possitive thing. But valueing something means de-valueing the negation of that. It always means un-equality. If you 'appreciate the value in that relationship' how can you ever let go of it?
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 16:41:37 BST