[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? Ham: 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. Ron: Within a subject/ object paradigm of a universe of 1's and 0's this works great but with the advent of relativity theory, nothingness takes on a new meaning, space may be warped, there may be no such thing as an absolute vacuum. This answers my questions about how value sensibility expands and creates matter but I fail to see how the explanation addresses Solipsism (not like that's a bad thing) I guess you are saying that differential reality does not exist Without value sensible agents. Which falls into what Pirsig says Only Pirsig allows for differential reality to exist independent of Of autonomous agents. Which is supported by various scientific evidence. [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. Ham: This makes no sense to me. There can be no freedom without an autonomous agent. The dichotomy makes this possible. Ron: That's just it, MoQ makes no distinction of autonomous agent >From otherness, it is all the same. Otherness is an illusion Of the agent aware, agent and otherness are one, the invention Of self through linguistic distinction creates the paradox. [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? Ham: 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. Ron; As I said I agree and so does Bob from what I undestand. Ham: 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.) Ron; I think I understand you now, Pirsig says something similar only he Posits that we are part of the source, but what we experience of it is through our value sense. The reason why you find Pirsig hard to fathom is because he drops The logic of subjects and objects because it is an invented linguistic expression for sensory experiences.. [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. Ham: That's good, I guess, but I don't really understand your meaning.. Ron: Pirsig posits that the majority of our value sensibility is handed to Us by society and dictated by it's rules of rationality. He states That seeing the world composed of subjects and objects is one of the rules of rationality that create the society we live in. western to be exact. Realizing this frees me to realize real autonomous freedom. [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? Ham: 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. Ron: Pirsig says that this sort of Primary dichotomy is created by society and language. Human beings are value sensitive differently on a biological level They are defined by every living organisms self sustaining drive of endurance through adaptation to change. No dichotomy but a multi Facetted awareness of the value of the moment. Thank you so much for indulging my questions!. 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/
