[Ron]: > How do you escape the problem of solipsism? > How do you free yourself of the charge of everything is > generated by your subjective experience and yours alone?
An intelligent question that indicates you understand me so far. Value sensibility in its primary (pre-intellectual) form is undifferentiated, having as its object the "essent" which is the entirety of Essence less its (negated) value. The essent is thus a representation of Essence with value-sensibility missing and replaced by the nothingness of which we are a part. Like Sartre's "Being shot through with holes", nothingness structures existence by dividing it up as a cosmic pattern. Theoretically, it's a template for the universe we all experience, but without the spacial and temporal aspects observed by individuated organisms. I don't question this primary order, but consider it a cosmic principle. It's simply "what happens" when sensibility is negated from the absolute source. [Ham, previously]: > Essentialism acknowledges that life in the differentiated mode of > existence is a dichotomy of proprietary awareness and objective > beingness. The MoQ does not. [Ron]: > No because it says that dichotomy really does not exist, it is a > function of our social logic and reasoning. I say that existence IS the dichotomy, and that logic and reasoning turns it into a sequence of events in time and space. [Ham]: > Essentialism gives the individual autonomy (freedom of choice) in > a relational world of otherness. The MoQ does not. [Ron]: > It gives the individual greater freedom by not limiting it to > a dichotomy. This makes no sense to me. There can be no freedom without an autonomous agent. The dichotomy makes this possible. [Ham]: > 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? [Ron]: > Forgive me for not fully understanding your meaning, > I thought you meant union was not to be achieved through > value sensibility, that Essent was estranged from human > subjectivity, that this separateness in fact creates our > awareness. How does this fit in with spiritual meaning? You've got it partially right. Separateness (individuation) does facilitate our awareness. But the substance of that awareness is Value, not the differentiated pattern. For purposes of clarity, I use the term "negate" for the proprietary subject and "essent" for its experienced object. What you must understand is that Essence is indivisible and unconditional, and that neither the negate nor its object is a "real" entity. Only the Value of Essence is real, and we sense it incrementally and identify it with individualized experience. A person can never be "part of the source", it can only partake of the source's value. Value-sensibility is our essence as individuals, but absolute Essence cannot be fragmented or individualized. All value is essential value. We are conjoined to Essence by Value which is our transcendent reality. (I know this is difficult, but ponder on it for awhile.) [Ham]: > 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? [Ron]: > The meaning of life is determined by the individual. For me personally, > I get a great sense of well being knowing that it all lies in my own > hands. That's good, I guess, but I don't really understand your meaning.. > 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? I'd hoped my explanation would be sufficient. [Ham, previously]: > 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". [Ron]: > Agree. > > 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? The primary dichotomy makes a dualism of many things: birth/death, growth/decay, subject/object, positive/negative, up/down, love/hate, time/space, being/nothing, etc. The locus of the self is at the center of this see-saw, and judges its values accordingly. I did not design the template of the universe, and am inclined to accept it as it appears to me. As I said previously: > 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. [Ron]: > How did value sensibility begin? How did the universal pattern start? > It clearly not always was. Please elaborate on this. I don't have the time now, Ron. Have you read my thesis at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm? I'd suggest you review it so I don't have to duplicate it in a post. Thanks for your interest, though. I'll get back to you in a later message. 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/
