Joe -- You wrote: > The question I am asking is Which is more real ³existence² > or ³abstraction² involving ³intentional existence²? IMO Pirsig > answered that there is no intentional existence. Aristotle was > wrong. Intentional existence is not metaphysics, nor is > potential existence except, perhaps, to a designer. > There is no mind which abstracts essence from reality, > there is only inner and outer experience.
You will have to define your terms, Joe--including "intentional", "potential", and "inner/outer experience"--if I am to understand your epistemology. For me, all being is an abstraction of Value. Thus, differentiated space/time reality is a conditional illusion, whereas ultimate reality is absolute and undifferentiated. The only experience that I would categorize as "inner" is what one thinks, remembers, or feels occurring within his own body, and I call this "proprietary awareness". All other experience is that of external (universal) "otherness". I distinguish potentiality from "actuality", not "intentionality". As I said previously: > If your reference is to Essence, [intentionality and potentiality] > are the same. The acts of a sentient being are "intentional", > of course, although its potentiality is limited. [Joe]: > I don¹t distinguish ³intentionality as realized potential from > ³potentiality. There is only reality, the value of existence. I reserve "potentiality" for absolute Essence. It is not a definition or a description; it simply completes the logic of an essential source from which all difference is derived. Essence is incapable of finite description. Your statement that reality is the value of existence follows the same logic that Pirsig used to define existential reality as Quality. IMO this is faulty, since neither Value nor Quality can be realized or appreciated without a cognizant perceiver, and the only value you can ascribe to existence is that human beingness depends on it. [Joe]: > IMO To not know ³essence² directly indicates that the > meaning in the use of the word is a belief. Yes, of course it's a belief. So is the MOQ. Since humans don't have access to absolute truth, all paradigms are beliefs--even the concept of evolution which is based on empirical evidence. Scientific methodology accepts experimental evidence, confirmed by repeated testing and affirmed by universal consensus, as "objective truth". It is a rational belief system because in a relational world such knowledge is effective in solving objective problems. But all knowledge is proprietary to the self and is derived from individual experience. What we call Truth is relative because WE are relative 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. > > Wow! Mathematical calculation is a precise language. > I called it ³potential reality². That was stupid on my part. > My inner/outer experience is corrupted by my educational > experience. I carry perverse SOM still. I don't know what you're about here, Joe. I can only repeat what I said before: > Logic and mathematical values apply only within a relational system > (existence). In Essence, all differences > are unified. Opposites like positive and negative, being and > nothing, alpha and omega, are essentially equivalent. [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. > > ³Possible existence² is Aristotle¹s description of ³intentional > existence² as differentiated from ³existence². IMO The value > of existence is order. Order is a uniform configuration, pattern or arrangement. Its only value is consistency, predictability, and possibly (as in the case the physical universe) self-sufficiency. It has value insofar as it supports individuality which, in turn, makes being aware. When I speak of values, I usually refer to psycho-emotional or intellectual values, such as Freedom, Love, Justice, Beauty, Magnificence, Peace and Harmony. (Of course, all differentiated values also have their negative counterparts: Bondage, Hate, Injustice, Ugliness, Banality, Brutality and Dissonance.) [Ham, previously]: > In this role, the individual is an autonomous agent. > Subjects and objects are born with the individual. [Joe]: > The value of dq is the inner experience of the undefined! > My inner experience is disorderly, and I become a victim > of the holocaust. I prefer Bo's definition: "Awareness is the value of the S/O divide." That makes value-sensibility the essence of the cognizant self, which is precisely how I view it. Value is the palette from which each of us paints our existential reality. It is also the glue that holds the self/other dichotomy together. The former is a negation by the negate (self), the latter is an affirmation of Essence. You are a holocaust victim because you read or heard about it? Were your parents or grandparents holocaust victims? If not, by what kind of "disorderly" or vicarious experience do you assume this victimization? I feel we're still talking past each other, Joe. If you're interpreting the MoQ ontology, I don't recognize it from your comments, and I doubt that you are any better informed as to my philosophy. I would suggest that we nail down the basics, such as the S/O split and your definition of awareness, before extrapolating conclusions that are beyond my comprehension. I'm game if you are ;-). 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/
