[SA previously]
> > 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]
> It is not my place to define another author's
> philosophy, so I purposely
> avoided it. Any attempt on my part to explain the
> MoQ would be seen as
> either an "attack" on Mr. Pirsig or a
> misunderstanding of his philosophy.
What you say here, is this what you meant as
before when you stated as follows:
"However, I believe that because the core self is
'value-sensibility", sensibility precedes awareness,
which is a departure from Pirsig."
I'm not trying to attack you. Clarity would help
avoid such attacks, or it is admittedly my lack of
restraint when you come to such conclusions that are
unfounded. For you say above, "It is not my place to
define another author's philosophy." Yet, how does
this match up with "...sensibility precedes awareness,
which is a departure from Pirsig." You preconceived
what the Moq says about sensibility and awareness, but
then you admit that you don't know what the Moq says,
right? It's this double talk that confuses me at
times. You make a comparison, but then don't know
half the comparison. Nothing wrong with not knowing,
I just thought you might have picked something up with
these discussions about the MoQ's defining of
sensibility and awareness that I might have not been
aware of.
[Ham]
> Since Pirsig has not used the term "sensibility",
> you are misguided if you
> think I know what it means to him.
It was your comparison. How can you compare as
stated above by you, "...sensibility precedes
awareness, which is a departure from Pirsig.", but I'm
glad to see you really didn't "...know what it means
to him."
[Ham]
> I have defined both sensibility and
> awareness in my thesis, as follows:
> "Sensibility - Pre-intellectual value-awareness
> which is the primary,
> undifferentiated attribute of the
> negate from which
> the Self is individuated."
Ok, I see what you mean by sensibility, maybe.
Is this what Ron was saying at times, which was, his
pointing out that s/o is a divide in reality that
can't be avoided, it is primary? Sensibility,
according to you, then is this s and o divided - it is
the divide part?
[Ham]
> "Awareness - Proprietary or subjective sensibility,
> the purest form of which
> is distinct from self-
> consciousness, memory or
> experience."
> I felt it necessary to make a distinction between
> these terms, because while
> proprietary awareness is derived from sensibility,
> it is relative to a
> specific subject (self) and is differentiated in
> content. Sensibility, on
> the other hand, is absolute as it applies to
> Essence, and therefore cannot
> be regarded as a "separate property" of this primary
> source.
So, awareness is sensibility, but only in the
context of a self, in the self/other division?
Whereas, sensibility is more absolute and thus, not
bound to just self/other division within the context
of a self. Therefore sensibility involves other
divisions such as this/that, but is not limited to a
self/other division?
[Ham]
> As for whether, or to what extent, sensibility or
> awareness applies to DQ,
> you will have to consult MoQ's author.
It is this division aspect found in your
definition of sensibility and awareness that is
difficult, that you well know by now. Dq is a whole
other understanding that permeates divisions, so, in
this context doesn't make sense.
Also, it is interesting, your use of sensibility.
To me this implies what's rational, sane, and thus
what 'makes sense'. Thus, this divergence of the Moq,
no wonder it seems to be irrational, insane, and
doesn't make sense according to you. You've
postulated what does make sense in your thesis, thus,
anything else that differs 'sensibly' would not make
sense. I don't know if this was done on purpose on
your part, but you've seemed to have taken possession
of a concept that fits your rational for an implied
universal rational?
[Ham]
> I know only that he maintains that
> inanimate objects "experience" value (quality?) and
> move toward it, either
> on a static or dynamic level. Since experience
> implies "awareness", I can
> only assume he believes unconscious objects are
> aware.
You see, this is a point that I've been hinting
to with others. It seems that value and quality in a
Moq sense are not subjective as noted in SOM type
philosophies. Value does not take on an subjective or
an objective slant. Thus, experience doesn't imply
awareness, which is such a crazy notion. Experience
doesn't necessarily limit itself (in Moq context) to
subjective or mind aspects of reality (in the realm of
awareness as opposed to sensibility in your thesis,
maybe.) Experience, as I understand it, is an event.
Events are not necessarily inanimate or animate, these
latter terms are too limiting in their efforts.
Events - happen, thus, events are, as DM mentioned
recently in a reality-illusionary context, events are
what is real whether you can kick them or not.
[Ham]
> He has postulated
> quality as the primary "empirical" reality, but
> makes no mention of a
> primary "metaphysical" reality.
Ahhh, Ham, the m in moq stands for metaphysics.
You see, it is these seemingly disregards for such moq
basics that confuses me. This is exactly why some say
such things as, "Have you ever read any of Pirsig's
books?" and etc...
[Ham]
> If he believes in a primary source or
> creator, he has not expressed such a belief.
Ok. Why does metaphysics have to equate creator?
Anyways, wholes sections of the Lila cover this, as
has been repeatedly expressed to you and quoted to you
over the years that I've been participating in this
forum. Do you see otherwise? As another event that
happens here, are you trying to create controversy to
stir discussion, as gav's recent try to say Australian
aborigines have been dated to be present on earth
since 400,000 years ago?
[Ham]
> If you comprehend Pirsig's ontology, perhaps you can
> enlighten me as to how
> "sensibility" fits into the MoQ.
Why does it have to?
> Best regards,
I like these endings. Notice how people have
these different ways to end their posts. I say woods
a lot or as now I say, evening light casts long
shadows. You say best regards or regards. Some just
end their posts with a name or initials.
evening light casts long shadows,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
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/
