Hi Ham Now spending some quality time on Hoffman' website, will report back shortly. Seems initially interesting, but not yet convinced about this user "interface" business - Mulling it over....
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ham Priday > Sent: 24 July 2007 18:39 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Moq_Discuss] [MD] Aristotle & DQ > > > > G'day Jos -- > > > > I should make clear that Mr Pirsig is not my favourite author, > > and I've always been largely convinced of "the logic of > essentialism". > > You can't imagine how gratifying that is to one who has > labored to show the > MOQers the fallacies of their persuasion but who has been > rebuffed time > after time. > > > We seem to have a few key differences in how the models are put > > together and in how far they each stray from a Pirsigian system. > > My feeling throughout each of our exchanges has been that the > > fundamentals are largely identical but differences appear where > > artificial elements have been are introduced as a product of > > socio-cultural conditioning. > > For instance your insistence on the primacy of human > [consciousness], > > and mine on [it's] ubiquity. I still think this makes you > susceptible to > > a kind of god botherer's group solipsism (oxywhat?), but by the > > opposite token I get accused of doctor doolittlesque animism. > > Anyhow it is perhaps better for me to argue for myself and drift off > > the standard MOQ model in order to discover what common ground > > there might be. > > I stopped trying to align my theory to the Pirsigian system > some time ago. > My reality model is fundamentally different than that of the > MOQ. This is a > problem we both share in this forum. If the "ubiquity of human > consciousness" is your primary reality, you side with > cognitive scientists > like Donald Hoffman who said: "I believe that consciousness > and its contents > are all that exists." > > Consciousness (awareness) is the cognizant attribute of being > human, but I > do not regard it as the "primary" reality because it is a > relative function. > We are aware of value, and we are cognizant of the "things" > that value > represents in a relational system. I distinguish awareness > from Sensibility > (from which individuated awareness is derived), attributing > the former to > the primary source (Essence). That makes me an > anthropocentrist, in that I > believe the human being is the cognitive locus and > decision-maker of the > universe; however, I do not regard reality as anthromorphic. > That is, I do > not accept the mystic's view that the 'I' is the 'All', and > that only the > illusion of experience (or the ego) hides this fact from us. To the > contrary, for me the 'I' is literally nothing -- a negation > of the divine, > and I am connected to Essence only through its value which is my > subsistence. But, perhaps, this is where we differ. > > > Essence - As you leave it undefined, you have no more basis on > > which to assert it to be static as you do to ascribe to it any other > > adjective, (absolute, unchanging, immutable etc, you just > can't know) > > this is a criticism I would also level at Pirsig. I think > that in both > > systems [while] the attempt to assign descriptive to the > indescribable > > creates a weakness, the concept is sound. In my version, the > > ground stuff/essence is exactly analogous to awareness, and > is everything. > > Again, you seem to be taking Hoffman's position: > Consciousness is all. And, > again, I remind you that consciousness is relative -- it > always has an > objective referent. A primary source, prime mover, or > creator must be > complete in itself, and not relational. This is not so much > a "description" > as a logical principle. (Incidentally, I agree that > descriptive definitions > of the primary source are beyond man's capacity, and we can > only approach > the Absolute by analogy and euphemisms. However, this does > not rule out > non-descriptive logical axioms, and negative attributes such > as "uncreated", > "undivided", "non-being", and "unconditional". > > [skip] > > For me patterns are not "made dynamic by" DQ/essence > > they are patterns IN DQ/essence, and are thus "of the source" > > (to which I resolutely ascribe no adjective). This seemed very > > clear to me on reading Pirsig, but several MOQers have > > (Platt for instance) on a couple of occasions been clear that this > > is not in line with mainstream MOQ interpretation (if such a thing > > exists). > > > > The secondary dualism in the MOQ is thus more stark than I would > > have it, to compare the two side by side, my straw man MOQer would > > say that there are two kinds of quality: SQ and DQ, I would > say there is > > one: D(sic)Q(sic), and again to resort to analogy, the most obvious > > explanatory imagery is that of a standing wave in fluid. > "Reality" being > > exclusively a property of the (non-temporally) "static" > pattern (wave) > > that stands in its "essential" media. The wave is > differentiated only by > > the fact that it has perceived. (note tense, and carefully assigned > > ownership) > > > > Evolution and levels - IMO, MOQ levels have been > arbitrarily assigned and > > are not fundamental to the system. ... > > I think we are in agreement here, despite the fact that I see > little value > in "patterns". A pattern is relative to its background. > Once you have > patterns, you are in the differentiated mode. Ultimately reality is > patternless, unified, One. As I've said before, the greatest > challenge in > metaphysics is to explain the emergence of difference from > unity. Pirsig > has not done this; neither have Aristotle, Spinoza, > Descartes, Kant, or > Pierce. The closest philosophers have ever come to resolving > this enigma > was Neo-platonism (Plotinus) in the 2nd century B.C. and the logic of > Cusanus in the 14th century A.D. Essentially, philosophy has > been dominated > by Aristotelianism since the Middle Ages. (And that includes RMP.) > > By the way, it might interest some of you that I'm putting > together a book > on Essentialism which I hope to have self-published by the > end of this year. > It's largely a collection of material from my website and > other essays that > I consider pertinent to the "contemporary mindset". I'm > dealing with an > Internet publishing house whose operations are in the Philippines, so > communicating is difficult at times, but I'll let you know > when the book > becomes available. > > Your contributions here are always insightful, Jos, and I welcome the > opportunity they provide for presenting my perspective. > > Best regards, > Ham > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the > Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by > Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM > Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) In case of problems, please > call your organisations IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, > monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. > > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the > attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, > disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are > not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and > inform the sender by return e-mail. > > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may > be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of > Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, > and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a > responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing > or forwarding e-mails and their contents. > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
