Ron --
> All that being said, you simply confirm Craig's > b) something always existed. > Since source is absolute, it always is, correct? The source (Essence) IS eternally and absolutely. But the predicate IS is not the same as "exists" in my vernacular. What exists is a conscious impression of things happening within a space/time system. It's an impression formed by the human intellect from the sense of value converted to experience. Whether or not the universe "always existed" is a mute question, since nothing would exist in the absence of subjective experience. > You hold source as an explanation, Pirsig holds Quality, > only you hold that Value awareness manifests as subject/object > thus source is separated from sense. Not separated from sense, as selfness is value-sensibility, but from the source of value. > Pirsig posits we are one with source, what we experience is > patterned Source, from mind to matter. This concept fosters > oneness and spiritual Unity. I don't think Pirsig posits anything like "spirituality". It's a concept he despises, along with "supernatural" and "divinity". As for "oneness", I view an aesthetic continuum arbitrarily divided into four dynamic levels something less than unity. > Essentialism fosters the concept of separateness and the inability of > reconciling this in our experience. Talk about nihilism, it's a nihilist > tease! Life has meaning! Sorry But you'll never experience it. Talk > about depressing. Essentialism acknowledges that life in the differentiated mode of existence is a dichotomy of proprietary awareness and objective beingness. The MoQ does not. Essentialism gives the individual autonomy (freedom of choice) in a relational world of otherness. The MoQ does not. Essentialism fosters the concept that human subjectivity (value-sensibility) is the inviolable union of the individual with the source of creation, that each individual ultimately reclaims the value lost to him in creation. What is nihilistic about that? The MoQ fosters the notion that human beings are totally the product of inorganic, biological, and social levels, and that selfness is a myth. Where is the meaning of life explained in Pirsig's philosophy? > By choosing the logic of cause and effect, what's to settle at the term > "source" as "absolute"? in effect you are also casting a "mu" answer > by this explanation. The eternal cause. What caused the eternal cause? > The negation of nothing and otherness? What caused that? Only the intellectual creature perceives every phenomenon as having a prior "cause". Observing events sequentially and objects dimensionally is man's way of experiencing reality. Process seen in space/time is the mode of human experience. There is no such differentiation in Essence. What is absolute needs no "cause". > You address existence as dependent on value sensibility, how > does Essentialism account for inorganic matter, evolution, and > the Existence of reality and time independent of living organisms? This is the universal pattern that is created when value-sensibility is negated from Essence. We each share in the experience of this pattern, albeit with different value associations and from a unique space/time perspective. > Thanks You're quite welcome, Ron. I appreciate the opportunity. Essentially yours, 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/
