Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:31:29 +0100
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, clark wrote:
> Ls Bo, Magnus, and Donny,
> There is something about your last three postings that bothers and I
> don't know whether I can put it into words or not.
> I can agree with you that the MOQ is primary but we should remember that
> we are not just talking about the period when awareness has existed in the
> universe.
How about this: There is no time but the present. The past exists
only in memory and recapitulation; the future exists only in hopes, dreams
and predictions.
What I'm getting at is this: Whatever we say about the universe is
something we say now, from here, in time (concrete). We project (or
*abstract*) timeless, universal truths such as F=ma -- we pop ourselves up
on what I'll call the "literary plane" (just as the story w/in a book is
atemporal -- you can skip about in it... Your reading might be interupted,
but the book itself can not be: It is there, complete, all at once.).
Here's a point made by Wittgenstein: Does the sequence 7777 occur
in the decimil expansion of pi? Well, yes, pi is an infinite,
non-repeating expantion so, 7777 *is* in there. But what you really have
in mind there is: If "God" in his atemperal, Archemedian point, out above
time and space, looks down and there he has the full expantion of pi all
spred out before him, he can pick out 7777 in it. Now this is a picture --
a picture that we are projecting and we are doing so from the present
moment -- here and now. Abstract universal truths are projected from
(abstracted from) the now. (And this is part of Hegel's uniqueness because
he says what really exists exists in time -- here and now, concretly.)
The MOQ (in my mind) has existed since the beginning. The
> question of whether it existed before the Big Bang or came after is
> something I am not prepared to hazard a guess on. That would make a great
> deal of difference
What? A metaphysical theory has exeisted from the begining? How
could that be? A theory is something used to explain a phenomina, or to
answer a question. Can you have a theory w/o having anybody around to do
the questioning or the theorizing or even to experience the phenoumina?
Any theory has to come after (or, better, within) the dialectic (dialogue,
discourse). (Not just science, but metaphysics as well rests ontop of
society [if you want to put it that way]. Only at that level can
something like Quality become for itself. One might say that it exits in
itself as a potentiality, but it certainly dosn't exist for itself -- it's
not realized, there's not yet any theory there.)
I'm not saying that scientific facts like F=ma are untrue. As I've
said before, F=ma is scientiffically true. But how is it that science is
true. (First of all, science is a social enterprize... [and from there you
should be able to go on yourself].) Scientists and logicians prove. I
don't. I ask questions (like) what does it mean to prove -- what's a
proof? ("Quality" or anything else you get out of a metaphysical inquiry
will be an answer. An answer is the result of a proof; a proof is the
result of a question. What's a question? Could it be that what really
exists are questions!!!?? Noooo, that's TOO strange! But couldn't this
mean that Good = a "force for greater information content?")
> I have had some peripheral contact with the activity of science and in my
> experience most, if not all, investigators do not do science with the idea
> that they are attempting to find the mind of God.
Not in those terms, no; I was using a metaphore. What i mean is
what's indicated above by the 7777 problem and indicated in your responce.
Whenever we start talking about abstract universal truths/facts, or you
mentelly throw yourself back to the pre-earth universe w/o reminding
yourself (like Wittgenstein) that, Hey! *I'm* creating a mentel picture,
and I'm doing it from the here and now -- Bang! up onto the literary
plane. That's what I mean. (Goffman's *Frame Anylissis* is a good read if
you want to explore this thought: What really exists, "always" [take that
ironically] is the present situation.)
They are mostly just
> people who are fascinated with the puzzle of the relation of things and
> find it absorbing and great fun. Their profession requires that they
> maintain a non-judgmental attitude toward their results, The scientist who
> began to speculate in mystical terms about questions of science or his
> results in the journals would soon lose his credibility.
Exactly: The *profession requiers*... Objectivity is a value.
> This does not mean that he can't go down to the coffee shop or to a bar
> and discuss meaning, but the experimental results must be expressed in
> non-judgmental terms because it becomes a link in the chain of knowledge
> and as such must be value free
No, what's valued is the objective posture. Nothing is value free.
As Hegel says, whatever is substantial (serious, real...) is also ethical.
Another guy who makes a good case for this is RM Pirsig. ;-)
until the final conclusion is reached. I
> suppose this means that these constraints will be forever because I doubt
> if we will ever reach that final answer. If such a time ever comes that
> will be the time for value or moral interpretation.
> This is not the same as the activity of Philosophy because this activity
> is open to anyone with any degree of competence and is based on speculation
> about final meanings. This is not to denigrate the activity of Philosophy,
> just recognize the difference. It may be that we can get the final answer
> by thinking about it but I have my doubts just as I have my doubts about
> getting the final answer by experimentation.
Answers are a pain in the butt. They get in the way of good
questions. The important thing about a question is the question itself.
Philosophy, if it is anything, is in the bussiness of fooling around w/
wiggy questions -- it dosn't ever really answer them, nor should it. But
it is possible to *use* them.
> The Metaphysics of Quality, as I view it, can easily subsume science,
> philosophy, or any other human activity. We don't need to beat ourselves
> over the head about SOMME
I don't know what you mean by "SOMME." (?)
because SOM was produced, along with everything
> else, and every other activity, human or otherwise, by the Metaphysics of
> Quality.
You mean: produced by Quality or produced by the MoQ? Is it the
metaphysical theory that's producing everything? That would be an
interesting twist.
My view of the MOQ is that it has worked with all of the "facts"
> of the universe to bring us to the position which we now occupy. What we
> are doing now is just to work up an explanation of the MOQ that we can use
> to convince the remainder of humanity that our views are correct.
Praise the Lord and pass the amunition; we're going to war. Send
forth the missionaries! (and count me out.)
After 70
> your head gets soft and I am losing track of my argument so I will quit
> this by saying that, if we are correct, and the MOQ represents a continual
> increase for greater understanding and morality and value (in everyarea of
> Gaia, not just humanity) then we don't need to concern ourselves with
> operation of the MOQ, just how to explain it to others.
If that's your bag.
This has to do w/ what I call "monument circleing." In phil. we
enconter monument after monument (Kant, Wittgenstein, Plato...); like
landmarks. And what do you do w/ a monument? You circle it: round and
round and round... caught in an orbit, and you never go anywhere! Yes
Pirsig is a mighty gravitational force. And mayhaps one day the Great
Church of the MoQ will subsume and conqure the intellectual world. But...
well as my Hegel guru, Dr. Van de Vate (whose a great Hegel scholler, but
also a powerfull philosopher in his own right), says: "Hegel didn't spend
his carer studying Van de Vate, and I don't see why the converse should be
true."
As for what the great Phedrus has to say on monument circleing --
well actually Doug, in his Mar 12th posting was nice enough to tell us.
Looks like the old "lone Wolf" says, "Don't just get caught up w/ my junk
-- come up w/ your own philosphy!" (Thanks Doug.)
Now I do too frequently fall into orbets as well (Pirsig, Joseph
Campbell, Hegel, Nietszche... even my iconoclastic friend Dr. Van de
Vate). The best cure I know is:
1) Take the question as a question; don't fixate on answers.
2) Don't take phil. to be an intellectual battelfield where the
Christians are out crusading against the dirty Muslems.
Now philosophy and philosophology are no longer in opposition. You
don't have to choose, you can do both.
This e-mail was waaaayy too long. I'm just going to shut up now
because I'm tierd of "hearing myself talk" so-to-speak. Discuss amongst
yourselves and I'm going to finnish that silly Saussage machine paper
that's been creeping around my brain for a while now.
Be back soon,
(Going into Lurker mode)
Donny
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:56 CEST