[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Ham]
> 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.
How do you conclude that somebody is a philosopher
and not an artist? What's the difference?
[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Ham]
> 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?
Exactly the point. Static quality is the
undefined (dynamic quality) defined. Static quality
is defining the incomprehensible, with the
understanding that the incomprehensible is still
incomprehensible. Sounds like essence to me.
[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Ham]
> What I mean by "dichotomy" is the relationship of
> two mutually exclusive
> contingents.
I said this awhile back, and I look at the
relationship. I don't see strict exclusives. These
exclusives are together in an event.
[Ham]
> 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.
Fail to see is "knowing subject and object of his
knowing". I was talking about a tree and wind.
[Ham]
> 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.
And yet, the inorganic level is a static pattern
of values. You fail to read Pirsig's books, and guess
your way through a discussion forum that thinks this
way. Just as you think your way. We can't argue from
different paradigms. Philosophy can't establish
ABSOLUTES from an inabsolute reality.
> [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.
[Ham]
> No, you don't have to separate the parts to live the
> experience.
Wow, after months of me trying to tell you this,
you finally got it.
[Ham]
> 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.
I have concluded that life doesn't conclude
itself. It is YOU and your artwork trying to conclude
an inconclusive life.
[Ham]
> 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.
I have thank you, opted for a philosophical
hypothesis. Just because nobody understands you
doesn't mean we're all wrong and your the only one on
this earth that's right. It's your thesis that is
trying to make an absolute reality out of an
incomprehensible, inabsolute reality. Think about it
Ham... for once, please, how many philosophies have
existed throughout time. Your not the first true
philosopher, many have come before, but each have been
argued away by those that have been born after. The
MoQ may not define it all, but at least it's open
enough to realize that, and that's how this
philosophy, for now, can change with the times. Will
we call it the MoQ, Zen, Dao, or something else in
time, I wouldn't doubt it. But you continue to
espouse that YOU'VE got it all figured out and want
others to learn your thesis. The MoQ is not something
you have to learn to understand. It's something we
each know already, on our own, without following some
kind of dogma.
[Ham]
> That is the approach I have chosen, and as Riley
> once said, "my head is made up."
good.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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/
