[SA says]: > I'm not trying to attack you. Clarity would help > avoid such attacks, ...
The meaning of these two statements is: You're attacking me without trying. And in the next paragraph you accuse ME of "doubletalk"! > 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. We would have a more productive dialogue if you would stop trying to analyze my motives and "preconceptions," and try to understand what I'm saying. You say it's "double talk" to claim that a part of my thesis is "a departure from Pirsig." Did not Pirsig state that experience is "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of quality,"? I maintain that sensibility--not experience--is pre-intellectual, and that all awareness is differentiated (by the intellect). This is where I depart from Pirsig, and it is why I make the distinction between experiential awareness and sensibility. So where is the doubletalk? I also said that Pirsig has not used the term "sensibility", so I have no way of knowing what it means to him. Yet you ask me to "define MoQ's awareness, and the MoQ's placement of sensibility?" insisting that I "know the answers to both of these questions" based on my "conclusion above" which is not a "comparison" of our philosophies but only a recognized difference. You also threw me for a loop when you admitted that my definition of sensibility surprised you: > Also, it is interesting, your use of sensibility. > To me this implies what's rational, sane, and thus > what 'makes sense'. Obviously, that's a totally different meaning of the word. "Reasonable" or "rational" are unrelated to the apprehension, cognizance, or awareness of organic sensibility. I don't see how anyone could interpret my use of sensibility as meaning rational or sane in this context. I suggest you consult your dictionary. I think you'll find the first definition listed as: "ability to receive sensations; feeling or perception." > 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? The S/O divide is primary to existence, not to reality. However, sensibility is pre-intellectual, pre-individuated value-awareness, which is the negated Subject. The Object is what I call the "essent". These two contingencies are bound together by Value. > So, awareness is sensibility, but only in the > context of a self, in the self/other division? By George, I think you've got it! > 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? Sensibility is actually the realization of Value in a holistic, undifferentiated sense. Since we apprehend it only through the five organic senses as interpreted by the brain, awareness is always differentiated in the same way that objective experience is differentiated. > 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. I disagree. If awareness is subjective, value and quality must also be subjective. How (or what) can value be if there is no subject to realize it? A world without awareness is a world without value. I note, also, that you equate experience with "events". No wonder I confuse you! > Experience as I understand it, is an event. Well, sir, I find that a "crazy notion". Experience is the AWARENESS of a phenomenon, whether it is an idea, a desire, a feeling, an object, or an event. I don't know any epistemology that defines experience as an event. Can you cite a Pirsig reference that makes such a definition? [Ham, previously]: > He [Pirsig] has postulated quality as the primary "empirical" reality, > but makes no mention of a primary "metaphysical" reality. [SA]: > 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... You force me to be critical, which I did not want to be. The M may stand for metaphysics, but that's as far as its author goes. Metaphysics is concerned with reality beyond the physical world. Dagobert Runes calls Metaphysics "...the science of being and its causes, as distinguished from the study of some particular aspect of being." Pirsig posits no primary cause for empirical reality, no transcendent source or supra-natural essence as fundamental to the experienced world. Without the fundamentals he cannot explain the origin of Quality or its cognitive perception. His fictionalized philosophy deals exclusively with the empirical world, hence does not meet the classical criteria of a metaphysical thesis. > 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? Oh yeah! I'm here to stir up trouble. Didn't you know I'm a renegade? I spend hours trying to drum up ideas to confuse you all. Here's an opportunity to use your definition of "sensibility". Tell me now, SA, does that sound sensible to you? (Time to go back to the woods and cast some long shadows.) Regards, 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/
