Hi Ron -- > Ham, > I have to say, you have a decent grasp of the intellectual situation. > As a matter of fact you side with Pirsig more than you know with > the Statement: > "Intellection is the process of apprehending facts or knowledge > in a rational, systematic way," which is socially contextual, as many > differing societies exist so does the method of apprehending > knowledge in a systematic way as well as the definition of said > knowledge. Where you and Pirsig tend to part ways is in the > dichotomy of self/other. Where you embrace it, Pirsig denies its > existence and posits it as a paradoxical illusion of a system of >apprehending facts. In Hindu Dialectic it is expressed in terms of > passive/active, which is very similar to Pirsig's Dynamic/Static.
Similar but not equivalent. I do not view experience as "passive" any more than otherness is. I take Pirsig's definition of the "quality event" as "the point at which subject and object meet" to mean the interactive connection between self and other, subject and object. For me, experience is the "active", dynamic process whereby value is objectivized into discrete phenomena. Looked at reflectively, as an intellectual concept, these phenomena are seen as constituents of the differentiated system we call the universe. Everything in our space/time existence, including the subject, is differentiated, relational, and in process. That's the nature of existence. We can talk about it as our conditional reality, ascribe categories or levels to it, analyze it historically, scrutinize it subatomically, and apply our knowledge of its principles to making it "better". But limiting our philosophical quest to this relational world is dismissing the ultimate source from which it is derived. Science has no way to take this into account, and traditional religions pacify the faithful with mythical dogma. This is why I maintain that only metaphysics and intuitive reasoning can provide the insight the "make sense" of the existential enigma. > As I've said to Bo, there are many ways to interpret reality, > Self/other is but one. > My question is: > Does Essentialism provide for alternative systems of perception? > Or just the one we westerners know so well. If we are cognizant of the fact that Value is our vital link to Essence, then each new experience becomes a kind of "epiphany" for us. Poets and artists are aware of this when they create a painting, a novel, or a piece of music. These are expressions of value that represent a whole new worldview. The more we develop our esthetic sensibility, the more finely attuned we are to the beauty and order of the universe, and the greater our enjoyment of life. Again, when we understand "society" as not just a collection of individuals competing with each other, but cognizant beings with desires and aspirations like ours, we can empathize with them and, by sharing our values, can discern the "cosmic connection" we each have in common with our essential source. We don't need hallucinogenic drugs, contemplative rituals, or mystical experiences for a "more enlightened" reality perspective. Existence is awe-inspiring enough, if we afford ourselves the opportunity to "smell the flowers" and nurture our sense of value in every aspect of experience, individually and collectively. I hope this gives you a more "beneficial" view of what Essentialism is all about and its possible implications for a more authentic society. (Admittedly, it's something I have to work on.) Thanks for the thoughtful comparisons, Ron. 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/
