Greetings Ham, I have my parents staying with me for a couple of weeks so I won't have much time, but,,,
Leaving the "unknowable" unknowable, there is much in this post that I find intriguing. It is why I can't dismiss what you write. There is something in your ideas that keeps attracting my attention. Not a "knowable source", though. Maybe it is that there is something in the way you describe illusion that seems to fit. Marsha At 03:41 AM 9/24/2007, you wrote: >Greetings, Platt -- > > > Well said, Ham. One for my keeper file. > >Thanks for the compliment, Platt. Marsha doesn't dig my "primary source" >concept, but she says she loves me, and that must count for something ;-) > >I'm really using this opportunity to intrude in your extensive dialogue on >"illusion" that has been going on all weekend in a related thread. It's >incredible how emotional human beings can get over the meaning of a simple >word. But, as usual, this debate actually isn't over the meaning of a word, >but about using the word to persuade an antagonist that his reality >perspective is warped. > >Most people here think my reality perspective is warped, too, but at least >it offers a sensible resolution of the illusion argument. One reason is >that Essentialism doesn't recognize patterns and levels as anything but >"fudge factors" that tend to obscure philosophical understanding. More >importantly, my ontology is based on fundamental concepts of reality, not >abstractions of empirical knowledge. As you know, I maintain that there is >an "ultimate reality" that is the source or essence of all experience. >Ultimate reality cannot be defined in experiential terms for the simple >reason that experience is relational and transitional, whereas Essence is >undifferentiated and immutable. > >You'll have to excuse my neglect of Quality (DQ/sq) in what follows, but I >have never been able to understand these euphemisms as either fundamental to >reality or reality itself. For me the essence of a thing is more >fundamental than the quality, substance, form, or history of a thing. But >that's because I'm an essentialist. > >What we experience is "the appearance" of physical (i.e., substantive) >reality. This appearance is finite, dimensional, and constantly in motion. >Metaphysically, it's a reduction of the primary source observed as an object >of which we are the subjects. As such (SA, Dan, David, Arlo, Pirsig, and >Buddhism notwithstanding) existence is an illusion. And since we are the >subjective 'apprehenders' of existence, we are also an illusion. Our >awareness is illusionary, and so is our knowledge, our ideas, and our very >selves. > >Okay, Now that you have the fundamentals, can you say that this appearance >is REAL? > >It is certainly real for you, inasmuch as it is the only reality you know >and is the reality you participate in. >But, at the same time, it is "illusional" because it is only a fractional >representation of Essence intellectually conceived. In a real sense, >EVERYTHING is illusional, not because it doesn't exist but because it is not >Reality--at least not the Ultimate Reality. Your answer, it would then >seem, depends on whether you believe in an ultimate (i.e, metaphysical) >reality or not. If you don't, the conditional, evolutional system comprised >of things, events, and selves must suffice as your reality. > >Of course, if you're a Pirsigian you will be expected to call Quality your >reality, whether you understand it as conditional or ultimate. > >Have I resolved anything? > >Best 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/ 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/
