Hi Ron, Sorry I haven't responded earlier, but I was not at all understanding your post. I'll try for a better understanding as thread continues without me.
Marsha At 08:37 AM 10/10/2007, you wrote: >[Ron] > > > > Ham, I believe, is not interpolating into the objective/static as much > > > when he contends that subjective value sense is the only thing by > > which we can know anything. The fact being that individual minds > > perceiving a universal continuity establishes an absolute source of > > perceptual reality while still maintaining individual perception of > > this shared phenomena. >[Ham] >Why are you addressing me in the third person, Ron? > >[Ron] >I'm trying to bridge the gap in understanding between your concepts and >Pirsigs. >I was aiming mostly at Marsha in explaination but also wanted you to >comment >on my understanding of Essentialsim. How am I doing so far? >[Ham] >Your use of "static" here confuses me, since I don't regard >subject/object relations as static, and I don't comprehend the meaning >of "interpolating into" them. I've never said that "subjective value is >the only thing by which we can know anything." However, I do believe >that value sensibility is the core self, and that all experience is >derived from it. But your last sentence has me totally baffled. You >seem to be asserting that "individual minds...establish an absolute >source," if I analyze it correctly. I trust that you mean establishes >the CONCEPT of an absolute source. Individual perception doesn't create >the source; it creates the experience of phenomena. > >[Ron] >That's what I meant, I was getting alittle carried away by concepts and >not focusing on clear description >in writing.I term static in the MOQ sense of the word as encompassing >subject/object relations as to provide >a frame of understanding for MOQer's. > > > Ham sees the ultimate value, the value of the individual with this > > source of perceived reality. This relationship is what is important > > not so much the positing of a universal concept of how objective/ > > static reality works empirically. >[Ham] >"Ultimate value" is the relation of the negate (individual self) to the >source (Essence). This value is not directly experienced but only >sensed, pre-intellectually. The physiological organism breaks value >down into differentiated sensations from which the intellect constructs >empirical reality (things and events that appear in space/time). >[Ron] >Thank you for cleaning up my meaning. > > > Ham is more of a humanist where Pirsig is more of an empiricist. >[Ham] >That's your characterization, Ron. I'm not sure what a humanist is. (I >hope it doesn't imply humanitarian!) Webster's Collegiate defines >Humanism as "devotion to the humanities: >literary culture." I would think that is more idiosyncratic of a >novelist and man of letters like Pirsig than a non-academic like myself. >As an anthropocentrist, I believe that the human individual is the free >agent of the universe. So perhaps "individualist" would be a more >appropriate term. > >[Ron] >Perhaps it would, I was trying to convey that you seem (to me) to focus >on relationships in regard to the >individual rather than an empirical understanding as a whole. Your view >IMO takes a more personal approach. >[Ham] >Thanks, Ron. And kindly explain what you meant by the statement >"...individual minds perceiving a universal continuity establishes an >absolute source of perceptual reality." >[Ron] >Well I meant that the evidence for source lies in the continuity of >percieved objects. That object may >mean and appear differently to different individuals but the basic >objective descriptive reference is the same. >ie. a blue ball. 20 out of 20 individuals will all recognize the object >as being blue, round, and perhaps >a ball. these 20 people may differ on hue and shade of the ball or size >or whether or not they like the color >blue or the shape or meaning ect. But you are certainly correct in >pointing out that source is a concept. > >I'm trying to bring both concepts together, Essentialsim and MOQ in an >effort to enrich understanding of both >and perhaps break new ground. > >Essentially yours, >Ron > >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/ 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/
