Hey, SA --
> Paradox #1: The MoQ is something made up by > Pirsig. Pirsig created it like an artist. > Essence IS Ham's thesis, > something he made up. Ham created it like an artist. An intuitive concept that is sufficiently plausible to warrant the belief of an author has nothing to do with art. The author may "artfully" explain his thesis, but this is a matter of explication rather than imagination. I haven't "made up" the philosophy of Essence "like an artist". I would hope I've created it like a philosopher. > Paradox #2: Quality is defined as the > undefinable. It is a source. It is not conditioned > to be anything in particular for that would be its' > value only. It is best to say it is the "whatness" or > "suchness" that Zen refers to. > Essence is defined as > incomprehensible. It is a source. It is not > conditioned to be anything in particular for that > would be its' value only. It is best to say it is the > "whatness" or "suchness" that Zen refers to. To define something as "undefinable" is to not define it. Essence is no more indefinable than Quality, and I have defined them both. If, as you say, the primary source "is the 'whatness' or 'suchness' of reality," have you not only defined it but demonstrated that you comprehend it as a concept? > How have many people around the world [have] not > seen this dichotomy as the experience? I really don't go > around seeing subjects and objects split from each > other by a black hole. I notice a streaming > continuing of events. The wind does not move the > leaves due to one having to be a subject and another > an object. It is an event called wind moving leaves. > The heart feels good and I walk on the earth are not > needed a subject and an object to define this > experience. It is merely an experience of the heart > feeling good as I walk on the earth. But I understand > you don't get this, so, I'll move on. What I mean by "dichotomy" is the relationship of two mutually exclusive contingents. The leaf is not the object of the wind, and no one sees subjects and objects "split from each other by a black hole". What you fail to recognize (or possibly even understand) is the difference between the knowing subject and the object of his knowing. Awareness is not an object or thing like the earth or a tree. Yet, without it there would be no experience of the earth or tree and no sense of quality or value. All existence is experiential -- even Pirsig says as much. Where we differ is in the concept of Quality as the SOURCE of experience. Quality (or Value) is one's psycho-emotional response to experience. Since one must be aware to have experience, the response cannot be its source. To deny this is like asserting that colors are the source of vision, therefore grass is visible because of the color green. (Try telling that to a blind man.) The truth is that LIGHT is the source of vision, and to differentiate green from purple or orange, one must possess the power of sight. The primary source of any phenomenon cannot logically be a property of the phenomenon. [Ham, previously]: > Moreover, if Value were not sensible, we would not > be capable of smelling the flowers or making > moral decisions, which is (or at least should be) > Pirsig's moral thrust. [SA]: > Sure value is sensible. But I don't have to separate the parts > of this experience to live the experience as it truly is, > which is a whole event, not of subjects and objects separated, > but of me smelling flowers and making moral decisions. > Each of these parts impact each other as one complete event. > This event wouldn't exist if this event wasn't organized as > one event separated into subjects over here and objects > over there. I'm referring to the event, not the parts. No, you don't have to separate the parts to live the experience. You don't have to be a philosopher in order to live life fully. But if you want to understand the meaning of life, you do have to come to some conclusion about what existence is, where it comes from, and how your experience relates to it. That conclusion may of course be based on a religious belief, scientific objectivism, or some poetic paradigm. If you have an intellectual bent, however, you will opt for a philosophical hypothesis. That is the approach I have chosen, and as Riley once said, "my head is made up." Peace now, 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/
