Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Tue, 31 Mar 1998 17:12:52 +0100
On Sun, 29 Mar 1998, Ant McWatt wrote:
> Do you see the problem of taking the concepts of "knower"
> and "known" as literal truths yet?
Well duh. :) I think I said myself that the idea of Budhism,
trncendental mysticism, and (to some extent also) German Idealism is to
eleminate the I-That distinction and realize *Tat Twam Assi* (that thou
art). Hegel for instents sets out to prove that the knower and what it
knows, what stands over against it, are one and the same. Kant sets out to
unify the manifold (the "many-ness") of experience and colapse it into a
single "Being."
Now, as I also indicated, our functioning is dependent on some
I-that distinction -- that's how we encounter the world. That's the realm
of *maya* -- time-space. So a "true" state of *Tat Twam Assi* would zip us
off to Nirvana and/or the funny farm.
PIRSIG:
> "I have thought about Bell`s theorem and what it might mean
> for the MOQ and so far have concluded that this theorem is
> just more of the same subject-object mess. "Local" and
> "non-local" presume a physical space. Physical space is a
> subjective intellectual pattern which is presumed to to
> correspond to an objective inorganic pattern.
How the hell do you have a *pattern* w/o space-time? I mean think
about that. A pattern is a rhythm, a reppatition, either through time or
accross space. Come on, that's what the bloody word means.
These
> patterns are so entrenched they are some of the last to
> disappear during the enlightenment process, but before pure
> Dynamic Quality is understood they must go.
Well that's what I've said, too. StaticQ is concrete -- it's IN
time-space. DQ is not. That also means, however that it's not a thing;
it's literaly nothing at all, as P goes on to address bellow:
The
> "nothingness" of Buddhism has nothing to do with the
> "nothingness" of physical space. That`s one of the
> advantages in calling it "Quality" instead of
> "nothingness". It reduces the confusion".
>
> (letter to Anthony McWatt, June 1st 1996)
ME AGAIN:
> > And if so, why waste all that paper on
> > LILA -- what's the point of talking about
> > evolutionary levels if space and
> > time don't really exist anyway?...
Perhaps I should expand upon that thought:
First come inorganic patterns. They're ridged and confining and Q
is a movement from ridgidity towards flexability/freedom. So organic-pov's
develop, but they, too, quickly become ridgid, so to escape those --
society evolves, and (in order to keep from flying apaart) social norms/
patterns/rules/etc. form. So we go on to the "intellectual" realm, but in
order to last it must have some kind of rules (reason, objectivity,
whatever...) but that's too ridged so we go on to this direct, intuitive
"post-intellectual," "post-verbal" *huntch* -- DQ?
(Now that's my understanding and if I'm wrong there then I have
severly misread; plese correct me.)
Now, isn't it clear as Christmass that the above picture of the
world is *riddled* w/ tempreal lingo. "First...then...and so..." They are
*evolutionary* levels, and the point of calling something "evolutionary"
is to say it improves over... (yes) TIME!
So, on the one hand P afirms that reality is a transendental unity
(like the Upanishads and the Buddha)... but then he turns around and gives
an explanation of (scientific) time-space experience.
(Hmmmmm... What is going on here?)
>
> > Now we're back at Kant's time paradox. To create
> > something -- to cause something, to give birth to--
> > requires time! First A; then A causes B; then B.
> > Nothing can create time. That's where Kant said that the
> > universe doesn't exist (See the "Kant on Recursion"
> > reply),
>
> I can`t find this reply Donny, so please re-post it.
> Causation is another redundant SOM concept so I don`t know
> how that would effect Kant`s time paradox.
This is cut-n-pasted from that post:
What your aproching is of course are paradoxes. (The one I
hear is: "This sentence is false." Is that T or F?) And Kant LOVES
paradoxes. The reason the CRITIQUE is a critique is because it's purpose
was to set limits on knowledge! Kant started out in 1770 to write a
responce to Hume, and by 1772 or so he had it, and wrote to a friend
that
it would be published w/in the year. Then he was sitting and thinking,
and he wondered: "Does the universe have a begining?" And he thought,
"Well, if it didn't that would mean an infinate amount of time had to
elapse to reach the present point and the whole point of saying
something
is infinate is to say that it can't elapse / be spent up. So: The
universe
had a begining! Good, I'll go get lunch now." But then he thought: "No,
wait. If time begain some point in the past, then it had to arise out of
/
begin in, something atemporal. But there's no reason why something would
arise out of something atemporal, since that emplies causation and
causation emplies time. Oh, dear. Beter hold lunch; I need to think
about
this." And he does. For 7 more years before CoPR is finished, in which
he
concludes, naturaly, that the universe doesn't exist. Makes perfect
sense
right? Time and space exist only phonoumenaly (for us) but not "in
reality." What really exists is (by formulation 2) the Object of a
Potentialy Creative Intuition... (by stage 4: The Moral Self, that's
what he's aiming towards).
>
> > and this is where the Upanishads say that the world is
> > illusory (and this is where metaphysics starts getting
> > U-G-L-Y).
> >
> > "DQ and SQ come in after the unity, Q, divides."
> >
> > Hummm...
> >
> > Or another way to look at it is this: DQ is the unity,
> > the in itself, a mere theoretical potentiality that is
> > necessarily unrealized; and SQ is the manifold of exp. --
> > time-space.
>
> And talking about time, Robert Harris (the physicist Bodvar
> introduced me to) said the "measurement" of "before and
> after" in units of time is analogous to measuring the depth
> of a river with a ruler. Time orders reality as
> much as the ruler orders the river i.e. it is just a
> useful measuring tool - the difficulties arise when people
> start thinking time literally exists in its own right. It
> doesn`t!
Well I have a different, but not alian view:
What is time?
A "what is-" question asks, "how do you pick it out?" Given some
ground can you plese identify the figure/find some relavent contrast.
BUT -- Come on, time and space don't figure onto the ground; the
ARE the ground! "Things" are things that are distinct in t-s, but t-s
arn't things. (Or: An object is an *EXPLANATION* for how something
mantains it's sameness among the changing flux of appearance [See either
the Muslum infernal damnation device post (pasted below for our new
members) or Pirsig's discusion of the a priori motercycle ZMM Chapter
11].)
Time fasinates me. It seems to me to be the ultimate explanadum
(that which is to be explained) of metaphysics, for: The one who gets to
say what counts as a cheeker-board, also gets to say what counts as a
checker! We ASSUME that time = the mathimatically intelligable time of
science, but that is unprovable, for, after all, for a scientific proof to
be any good that's what time has to be. (See here my story about Galilao
and the pendulem in "Breakneck Kant Part 1" Feb.17th -- I can repost that
if need be.)
> Or do you think it`s better to go along with Kant
> and say time exists but the universe doesn`t?
No,no,no,no,no.
The universe can't really exist because of time (and 3 other
paradoxes Kant chokes up) therfor it must be an illusion (or "mere
appearance" if you prefer... *maya* -- how's that?) and what really exits
is the Moral Self, which is fundamentaly unknowable, however it is
reasonable to have faith in its existince, for that clears up a lot of the
philosophical problems (platipi) of the (Kant's) day.
People who list Kant as a S-O dualist, don't understand Kant!
I know which
> theory I like better but I think it would be best for me to
> see that paradox of Kant`s before totally dismissing it.
Kant and Aristolte get a lot of flak around here, and I think
they're both being misrepresented.
Oh, well.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
THE INFERNAL QUARTER:
Pretend I hold up a quarter in front of you and ask, "What do you
see?" -"A quarter"- "But what to you SEE?" -"Oh! A silver disk."- Now I
turn the quarter perpandiculer to you, and say "Now what do you see?" -"A
silver line."- "Well," I say "What you saw changed but it's the same
quarter so what you say couldn't have been the quarter." (P does his own
version in ZMM ch 11, I think, w/ the "a priori motercycle.")
The point is that an object is an explanation. That's it's
function. If I peel off the foil wraper and pop the chocolet "coin" in my
mouth, you'd say, "Gee, it wasn't a quarter at all; it was a candy." Or if
said "ALLAH BE PRAISED!" and throw the quorter down and it explodes in a
burst of hellfire and brimstone you'd say, "Why that was no quarter; that
was a Muslum damnation device!" ;-)
-- 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 - 16:42:58 CEST