Greetings Bobby and Dan,
> " Whatever happens to the Beast will also happen to Man , for man
> has not woven the web of life, he is but one thread. What man
> does to the web, he also does to himself."
These are true words (wasn't it spoken by chief Seattle ?).
I think one of the morals that can be concluded from the MOQ is to regard a
Dynamic/personal aspect of experience as positive.
> I agree with your observations about Physics being a branch of
> Metaphysics , however you must be aware that most Scientists
> do not share this observation and do not accept Metaphysics as
> a valid tool of inquiry into Reality.
Yes, besides fysics I study philosophy as a kind of 'minor' and I found it
striking that physicists do understand as little of philosophy as
philosophers of physics. They think they understand each other but abuse
each others terminology at the same time. Most scientists I met have
absolute no understanding of the philosophical framework of their science.
Of course there are exceptions (as to any generalizing) but in general this
observation holds.
to Dan:
>I'm not certain what is meant by "non-relativistic" but COMMON experience
I use to talk of common experience as "inter-subjective" experience, the
experience shared by more (or all) subjects, the experience two subjects
have in common. You can argue whether or not even this inter-subjective
experience is relativistic but to the group of subjects who share the
experience it is not.
>.. - it is precisely because of Relativity of the Physical kind that
>we must take relativity of all kinds seriously.
In your post you refer to relativity in the sence of physical relativity, I
think you should not confuse the physical sense of this word whith to
philosophical sense. You refer for instance to quantum mechanics (not
localized particles etc.) but a physicist agreing on this theory has no
obligation to agree 'automaticaly' on philosophical relativity - there IS a
realistic interpretation of the quantum theory (and I can know - I discussed
it on college just yesterday). Of course physical relativity can be an
argument for philosophical relativity but it isn't a prove.
I like to see quantum theory as a proof that there is a Dynamic factor even
on the anorganic level and use this as an argument that the Dynamic factor
at higher levels should be larger since they are 'build' on the anorganic
level.
I don't think that MOQ is per definition relativistic
>The idea that
>existence precedes essence fits in very well with Pirsig's metaphysics, I
>believe. Existence, Quality-- the same?
Can you explain this in some more words ? - I'm not very familiar whith
Satre.
If Existence=Quality how do you see Dynamic Existence and Static Existence ?
(once again I excuse myself for my bad english - you shall have to live
whith it)
Greetings,
Jaap
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST