On Wednesday 30 January 2008 10:10 AM Ham writes to Steve:

 

<snip>

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 ³other², i.e.,
subject/object experience, as beingness.  What holds this dichotomy together
is the Value of the undivided source.  In actualized existence, the
³negative²  (creative) force that divides the subject from its object is
counterbalanced by an ³affirmative² 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 ³Choicemaker² of the universe.

 

This is only my hypothesis, not a science or a dogma, and I don¹t expect any
MOQist to endorse it. However, I do think it offers a plausible basis for
morality and purpose in existence, which Mr. Pirsig¹s patterned levels
hierarchy hints at but never really develops.  At the same time, despite the
metaphysical differences, I don¹t view my hypothesis as ³in conflict² with
the MOQ.  Any comments?

Regards,

Ham

 

Hi Ham, Steve, and all,

 In my epistemology I try to distinguish a primary source from a
differentiated source! Existence is a tough subject! Is there a primary
existence and a differentiated existence?

 Plato says no differentiation! in existence, a world of ideas.   Aristotle
says, yes to the differentiation! intentional and real existence, SOM!

 If existence is manipulated by essence then how does essence exist to do
the manipulation? If existence is implied in essence, is existence a higher
level?  An eternal essence differentiated by negation is not DQ since DQ is
undefined.  Essence and existence are not the same.  IMO DQ is undefined
value. Is this only another way for describing Essence?  Or is this only
another way of saying I am limited in being able to communicate my awareness
of a level of evolution, which can develop to the other or remain emptiness!
By itself awareness evolves to the intellectual level of law, from emptiness
to the other. It requires a conscious effort to evolve further, MOQ.

 IMO proprietary awareness (consciousness), indicates a differentiated level
in evolution. If I am going to discuss value, I can do it as if in
existence. In this way everything has value.  The difference is from
evolution.  I am not a creator, and value is perceived by my awareness, as
the motive for actions.

 Value evolves in manifestation, e.g., as consciousness it becomes the
social level of evolution. This evolves to the level of law, the
intellectual level.  This evolves to MOQ.  This evolves to enlightenment.
MOQ and enlightenment are only evolutions of consciousness, the awareness of
the social evolution.  They are beyond the law of intellect, and proprietary
awareness, the emptiness of society.

 

Joe



On 1/30/08 10:10 AM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> This is only my hypothesis, not a science or a dogma, and I don't expect any
> MOQist to endorse it.  However, I do think it offers a plausible basis for
> morality and purpose in existence, which Mr. Pirsig's patterned levels
> hierarchy hints at but never really develops.  At the same time, despite the
> metaphysical differences, I don't view my hypothesis as "in conflict" with
> the MOQ.  Any comments?
> 
> 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/

Reply via email to