On Monday 18 Feb 2008 10:43 AM Ham writes to DM Steve, Bo, DMB; [Ham] Since I don't want to go on record as writing a "stupid sentence", even if it is DMB who has made this appraisal, some clarification is in order. Here's what DMB missed in his haste to dismiss my statement as nonsense. EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS MADE AWARE BY EXPERIENCE. Inasmuch as objective reality is experiential (i.e., beingness divided by nothingness), it does not define Essence. Essence is the "potentiality to be" but not being itself. Its potentiality is pure "Is-ness". The fundamental nature of Essence is best expressed as the predicate "IS". All else is an "emanation", "mode", "negation", or "reduction" (depending on your ontology) of this absolute potentiality. Thus, Essence is not a created "existent": it does not exist. If DMB is unable or unwilling to accept the logic of this concept, that's his problem. [Joe] Aristotle defined motion as ³actus in potentia quantum in potentia². Aristotle defined a word as being an abstracted essence given intentional existence in a mind, to distinguish it from Plato¹s world of ideas. Ham, how can you know an essence without it becoming ³actus². The essence becomes itself but different. And then you have the real and intentional division of existence of SOM. The value of existence is entirely denied. You state: ³Essence is the potentiality to be but not being itself.² Is your essence real or intentional? And if it is real how is it related to the existence of a sentient being? And if intentional, where does the value of existence manifest? [Ham] My reason for bringing this up here is that what we call Sensibility and Value are derived from Essence, but they can only be experienced by a cognizant agent that stands apart from its undivided source, that is not intrinsically essential. [Joe] 1+1=2. The value of one doubled is two. Mathematical calculation is only potential reality, and it can be dismissed in the realm of essence. [Ham] This is why I place great importance on something Bo has asserted: "Consciousness is the Value of the S/O divide." I think he has the principle exactly right, except that he's attempted to make it work in the context of Pirsig's levels hierarchy. If subjective awareness is the value of the existential dichotomy (sensibility/otherness), then human beings are born as "sensible agents" of value. In other words, the essence of the individual is value-sensibility. Everything experienced in existence is an intellectual construct of this value which binds (draws, attracts?) the self to its other-beingness. Although the particular forms of experienced objects and their precise arrangement in space/time follows a cosmic design, everything that is experienced is representational value. And it is the individual agent whose value-sensibility "creates" beingness by bringing it into conscious awareness. [Joe] IMO S/O refers to internal, external manifestations in human awareness. The essence of a sentient being cannot be only possibility if the value of existence matters. [Ham] I hope this helps explain why the newborn individual, who is "deprived of beingness", not only seeks out its value experientially but carefully and methodically identifies those objects (patterns?) of being which complement its value sensibility. In this role, the individual is an autonomous agent. Subjects and objects are born with the individual. [Joe] As I read the above I ask myself the question. Why don¹t I matter? Was the holocaust truly moral in deciding a manifestation has no value?
On 2/18/08 10:43 AM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David M, Steve, Bo, and DMB (if he's still listening) -- > > > I have more to say on this topic, David, but first I have to clarify a > statement about my philosophy of Essence that DMB has misinterpreted. I > mention it in this thread because it is relevant to the origin and nature of > subjective consciousness. > > Ham (previously): >> It might be helpful to mention that I reserve "existence" for >> experiential (objective) reality, assuming that what does not >> exist (Essence) simply "IS". > > DMB responds: >> This is one of the stupidest sentences I've ever read. >> What does not exist simply is? That's pure nonsense. >> Obviously, if it does not exist then it simply isn't. >> And the first part of the sentence makes no sense either. >> My whole point was to distinguish experience from objective >> reality, but you simply re-confused them here. It's hopeless. >> I give up. > > Since I don't want to go on record as writing a "stupid sentence", even if > it is DMB who has made this appraisal, some clarification is in order. > > Here's what DMB missed in his haste to dismiss my statement as nonsense. > EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS MADE AWARE BY EXPERIENCE. Inasmuch as objective > reality is experiential (i.e., beingness divided by nothingness), it does > not define Essence. Essence is the "potentiality to be" but not being > itself. Its potentiality is pure "Is-ness". The fundamental nature of > Essence is best expressed as the predicate "IS". All else is an > "emanation", "mode", "negation", or "reduction" (depending on your ontology) > of this absolute potentiality. Thus, Essence is not a created "existent": > it does not exist. If DMB is unable or unwilling to accept the logic of > this concept, that's his problem. > > My reason for bringing this up here is that what we call Sensibility and > Value are derived from Essence, but they can only be experienced by a > cognizant agent that stands apart from its undivided source, that is not > intrinsically essential. This is why I place great importance on something > Bo has asserted: "Consciousness is the Value of the S/O divide." I think he > has the principle exactly right, except that he's attempted to make it work > in the context of Pirsig's levels hierarchy. > > If subjective awareness is the value of the existential dichotomy > (sensibility/otherness), then human beings are born as "sensible agents" of > value. In other words, the essence of the individual is value-sensibility. > Everything experienced in existence is an intellectual construct of this > value which binds (draws, attracts?) the self to its other-beingness. > Although the particular forms of experienced objects and their precise > arrangement in space/time follows a cosmic design, everything that is > experienced is representational value. And it is the individual agent whose > value-sensibility "creates" beingness by bringing it into conscious > awareness. > > I hope this helps explain why the newborn individual, who is "deprived of > beingness", not only seeks out its value experientially but carefully and > methodically identifies those objects (patterns?) of being which complement > its value sensibility. In this role, the individual is an autonomous agent. > Subjects and objects are born with the individual. > > Questions? Comments? Chastisements? > > 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/
