On 8/23 Joe said -- > I agree being brainwashed is unfortunate. As far as words go there > doesn’t seem to be much difference between "levels" and "sources" > as a beginning for thought. As an amateur singer I have been exposed > to the octave for a long time. I think it is unfortunate that you used the > term "brain washed" to describe a long observed phenomenon.
Perhaps brainwashed is too harsh a word, but I don't know any other, with the possible exception of "habituated" or "conditioned" which only behavioral psychologists seem to understand. We are all brainwashed in the sense that we think of our selves as beings of the physical world, like trees and houses. But our beingness is borrowed from the objective other that is our perspective of Essence. What constitutes our selfness is value-sensibility, but we are aware of value relationally due to the finite limitations of organic cognizance. [Joe]: > "Essence" is the ultimate source." You describe the movement from essence > to "real self" in terms of "value sensibility" and "primary to > experience". > Are you saying that "essence" is embodied in existence? My understanding > of your triad was that "essence, existence, nothing" are coequal > principles. I have no "triad", unless Value is regarded as a third element of the self/other dichotomy. And there is no equality between objective essence (essent) and nothing: in fact, nothingness is the antithesis of essence. Of course Essence encompasses existence because Essence is the ultimate source of everything. But the "quality" of existence (to use Pirsig's term) is proprietary to the individual. Everything that we blithely refer to as "quality" is contained in our subjective awareness of an objective other. > What, then, is "real self" in contrast to "essence"? > It seems that "real self" being primary to experience and "essence" > as the beginning and the end as ultimate source denies experience > altogether. If I don’t experience "essence" and "real self" how do I know > them? As I said above, the "real self" is value-sensibility individuated as a being-aware. Self is not primary, however. Pure value is primary because we draw upon it for our experience. Individuation of pure value into proprietary (differentiated) awareness follows the sensibility. We know Essence by the Value of our experience, just as we are the "knowers" of our selves. (If you don't mind, I'll skip the rvolutionary reference to homo sapiens, mostly because evolution (temporal differentiation) is not critical to my thesis and adding dimensionality unnecessarily complicates my ontology.) [Joe, later]: > "Cognitive perception" is unclear without a "mind". > IMO the movement from hominid to homo sapiens is a movement > to the level of consciousness which evolves further to law, > the intellectual level. I never said there is no "mind"; I simply consider it the cognitive function of the intellect. Since I'm not an evolutionist, but am dealing with fully cognizant human beings, the anthropology of man is of little concern to me. I'm more interested in the development of the intellect (and self-consciousness) with respect to the individual. Like most pedagogists, I view it as a gradual process that can be traced from the embryonic stage of gestation to full development in the adult. I'm sure my answers will evoke further questions, but it's difficult to deal with these concepts on a piecemeal basis. Your continuing interest is appreciated, Joe. Essentially yours, 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/
