Ham, Steve & y'all: Ham said: My epistemology is that the primary source of existence (I call it Essence, Pirsig calls it DQ) creates a dichotomy in which sensibility is divided from the source. This allows for the awareness of an "other", i.e., subject/object experience, as beingness. What holds this dichotomy together is the Value of the undivided source. In actualized existence, the "negative" (creative) force that divides the subject from its object is counterbalanced by an "affirmative" force (Value) which draws the value agent (individuated selfness) back into its primary source (Essence.) This makes each individual the autonomous agent of existence, or what Baxter and others have described as the "Choicemaker" of the universe. ...I don't view my hypothesis as "in conflict" with the MOQ. Any comments?
Steve: I don't think it is "in conflict," you are just saying something different. The polar coordinates and rectanglular coordinates and paintings in a gallery analogies apply. DMB can probably explain this better than I can. dmb says: Steve is more generous than I am. Even though most of it is unintelligible to me, it seems pretty clear that Ham's Essentialism is at odds with the MOQ. The thing I noticed above all was that Ham repeatedly resisted Steve's explanations of undivided experience by invoking the subjective self, which is also central to his essentialism. I think this represents a substantial conflict with the MOQ. Ham's insistence on the importance of the "observing subject", the "cognizant subject", the "body of this subject", consciousness, "the individual's intellect" etc. looks exactly like SOM to me. It amounts to a re-assertion of the Cartesian self, which is described in Lila as a ridiculous fiction. For James, it is one of the most troublesome fictions in all of philosophy. For the Pragmatists in general it is a reified abstraction, an idea that mistakes itself for an existential reality. It's a hard idea to get used to. It scares people. And if a guy's philosophy is centered around it, then it's even harder. I don't know that I could explain it any better than Steve did, but I'd emphasize the fact that switching from SOM to the MOQ will necessarily involve a fairly serious re-conceptualization of the self. Its a bit like telling a medieval christian that there is no such thing as an immortal soul. The Cartesian self is a secular soul, if you will. Add that to the West's emphasis on individuality, celebrity and the atomization of late capitalism and you have one huge pile of resistance. It is both emotionally and conceptually difficult to let it go or trade it in. _________________________________________________________________ Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power. http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan 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/
