On Wednesday 27 February 2008 1:31 PM David M writes to Joe: Hi David M and all, [Joe]: 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. DM: My way of looking at our experience is that whilst our outer experience is very open to many interpretations and is very rich it is in some sense finite relative to the potential & freedom that we seem to find in our inner and imaginative experience. [Joe] IMO Pirsig visualized the ³value² in existence as what we know. This value is divided into evolutionary levels. ³Intentional existence², a product of the mind, was created by Aristotle to depict how we know things. The mind, a faculty of the soul, abstracts the essence from the image created in the imagination and gives it intentional existence in the mind. The mind, then, creates a word for the abstracted essence and places it in the memory. This theory was created by Aristotle to replace his teacher, Plato¹s, world of ideas. The metaphysics he created to verify his suppositions became known as Subject Object Metaphysics. The apprehension of value in existence for knowledge, would suggest inner or outer experience is equally experience. Communication of inner experience is more difficult and may require more words. ³The possible² may be realization of the inadequacy of the description DQ. [David M] That's why mathematicians explore the possible more than the actual. There is surely a sense in which as agents and artists and makers that the potential is made actual and moves from the inner to the outer sphere. What other sense is there to creation, both human and natural. [Joe] I do not see the possible¹ as inner experience, in contrast to actual¹ experience. I can¹t jump on my horse and ride off in all directions. Maybe the possible¹ is a negation of a dimension of time or place. The ³possible², for me is difficult to explain as to how it pertains to valuable experience. My sense is that if I am doing something, I am not doing the other thing. A memory of past experience may be forgotten, and then enters the realm of the possible¹. This experience is built up in childhood, forgotten and then enters as a whole other way to live, ³the possible². I do not know if a child has a view of the possible? ³I want² seems to be the order of the day. [David M] Wonder at this is what gave us the idea of divinity. Is not a true and perfect circle not a potential idea, a perfect idea, essential to make sense of the actual, but is never trully found or actualised. Unlike Plato of course I think there is more to potentia than the perfect, the infinite contains everything not just the ideal, the anti-ideal too, and everyform inbetween, but only potentially. The potential is also not in some other realm, it is with it, it is entirely available in experience, if only you have the time and inclination to fully explore it, but like any journey you can't teleport around it, you have to work at it. We are a thread that seperates the finite and in-finite, or SQ/DQ. David M [Joe] I think I like the experience of wonder at the order of the universe for an idea of Divinity. I can¹t make all that. Joe
On 2/27/08 1:31 PM, "David M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Joe]: > 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. > > DM: My way of looking at our experience is that whilst our > outer experience is very open to many interpretations and is very > rich it is in some sense finite relative to the potential & freedom > that we seem to find in our inner and imaginative experience. > That's why mathematicians explore the possible more than the > actual. There is surely a sense in which as agents and artists > and makers that the potential is made actual and moves from > the inner to the outer sphere. What other sense is there to > creation, both human and natural.Wonder at this is what > gave us the idea of divinity. Is not a true and perfect circle > not a potential idea, a perfect idea, essential to make > sense of the actual, but is never trully found or actualised. Unlike Plato > of course I think there is more to potentia than the perfect, > the infinite contains everything not just the ideal, the anti-ideal > too, and everyform inbetween, but only potentially. The potential > is also not in some other realm, it is with it, it is entirely available in > experience, if only you have the time and inclination to fully explore > it, but like any journey you can't teleport around it, you have to > work at it. We are a thread that seperates the finite and in-finite, > or SQ/DQ. > > David M 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/
