Greetings Krimel and Gav --
[Gav]:
> They are both relative terms. i am saying that choosing one
> polar option or the other is the characteristic SOM approach -
> adversarial dichotomies. pirsig's novel approach to the twin horns of
> these dilemmas was to reject both, to go between them to the
> unitary origin of both.
[Krimel]:
> So what's the middle way between life, intelligence and consciousness
> growing organically as the conditions here support it and life being
> created or managed by a higher consciousness or absolute source?
[Gav]:
> It can't be. experience is unitary and prior to polar
> relativisation.
[Krimel]:
> You say experience is unitary. But isn't experience comprised of
> five senses transducing energy from the environment into electro-
> chemical patterns in the nerves. Aren't those neural patterns filtered
> through memories and emotions and organized into a whole experience?
Gentlemen, if I may interject -- your overall concept is not in dispute. We
are all in agreement that the experience of existence is "polarized",
"dualistic", and intellectually differentiated. We also agree that "true"
reality is "unitary", "whole" and non-relative.
As I've suggested before, a simple re-definition of your (MoQ's) terms would
eliminate this "apparent" dilemma and the confusion that it has caused.
EXPERIENCE -- Conscious (intellectual) awareness of existence as a
system of differentiated objects.
SENSIBILITY -- Pre-intellectual awareness of Value (i.e., "Quality") as
a holistic (essential) reality.
Try this nomenclature. It works! And it will resolve your dispute.
Essentially yours,
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/
