[Ham]
> > Define MoQ's awareness, and the MoQ's placement of
> > sensibility? Also, what do these terms mean in
> your thesis? Since you know the answers to both of
> these questions with a comparison included from your
> > conclusion above, then enlighten me on this topic
> > please.
Ham, I was asking you to define awareness and
sensibility according to the MoQ since you concluded
that your's departs from Pirsig's as follows:
"However, I believe that because the core self is
"value-sensibility", sensibility precedes awareness,
which is a departure from Pirsig."
To depart from something I thought you would have
to know what that something is you departed from.
I'll try to comment on your post now.
[Ham]
> I wish Pirsig had defined MoQ's awareness. It would
> have avoided much
> confusion, since he only speaks of "experience" and
> never mentions
> "sensibility". But I shall defer to the MoQers to
> define their own terms.
ok
[Ham]
> As an essentialist I regard Sensibility as primary
> and essential to
> awareness, knowing, feeling, perceiving, and being.
> As I said before, I
> believe that the core self is value-sensibility.
> (This would be the
> equivalent of Pirsig's DQ, except that Value is not
> the primary source but
> the link or connection between subject and object.
Wait, wait, I thought you said above that Pirsig
doesn't define value-sensibility, but here you say it
is "...the equivalent of Pirsig's DQ...", unless, your
pointing out that Dq is not defined and that's why
Pirsig doesn't define it. "Awareness, knowing,
feeling, perceiving, and being" are addressed with the
levels. I would say not one of these would happen if
one or more of the levels were disregarded.
[Ham]
> I define awareness as consciousness of the self
> (self-consciousness or
> self-identity) as well as the apprehension or
> cognizance of all
> differentiated entities. Awareness is proprietary
> to the self, which means
> that each of us is aware of our own reality. The
> physical structure of
> reality is essentially the same for all of us, since
> it represents the
> otherness ("essent") -- that which remains of
> Essence when proprietary
> (value-) sensibility is removed from it.
Ok, good definition.
[Ham]
> To express this another way, the essent is Essence
> without sensibility,
> whereas the self ("negate") is sensibility without
> Essence.
Did you mean here, "...whereas the self
("negate") is sensibility without (essent)?
[Ham]
> This defines the self/other dichotomy which Pirsig
regards as an
> illusion. In my view,
> existence is an illusion only in the sense that it
> is a finite,
> differentiated perspective of Essence. As David M.
> pointed out, "What we
> experience is real, it is all real. What we might
> call an illusion is real,
> we see it, but it might not be something we can
> kick."
> Whether we kick it or love it, existence is the only
> reality we shall ever
> know from the perspective of a finite self.
ok
> Is this sufficient for your "enlightenment", or do
> you require a complete
> epistemology?
I was just hoping you could have commented upon a
comparison between yours and Pirsig that you have
concluded for yourself already (as noted above).
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for
today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
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/
