Ron -- Before we leave this discussion, I want to stress a point that I've neglected to mention. It should resolve your conundrum:
> This is the conundrum, existence relies on the illusion of > space/time to I which I take to mean that existence itself > is an illusion. Hmm. > > I agree, but as I stated previously it seems to be a matter > of mutual creation; there must be outside stimuli to value, > but by interpreting qualia we create it. > Qualia supplies the pieces and we build experience. What we have been structuring here is Existence, the appearance of being in space/time. Existence is illusional, as you say, as it appears to be a dichotomy whose two contingencies (sensibility and otherness) build on each other to produce the illusion. You're quite right that there must be something beyond value to support this dichotomy; otherwise being-aware is pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. You can't get something from nothing. You can't have a see-saw without a fulcrum to support it. A primary source (causal agent, in SOM terms) is absolutely essential for this ontogeny to work. This is the point that Pirsig's Quality heirarchy misses, and it is why the MoQ also leaves us with an unresolved conundrum. My primary source is not Being, since there is no being without its antithetical Nothingness. It isn't Consciousness, either, because conscious awareness presupposes an object to be aware of. A metaphysics of existence cannot be complete in the absence of a "potential to exist". In my philosophy Essence is that potentiality. Essence is descriptively undefinable because it is the absolute coincidence of all contrariety. As a logical concept, however, Essence can be defined as the uncaused cause or 'sui generis' of actualized existence. For a more complete accounting of how difference and multiplicity arise from Essence, you'll have to read my thesis at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm. For now, I'll simply say that Essence, from the SOM perspective, is negational. It negates nothingness to create difference and, specifically, to divide sensibility from the 'essent' (i.e., being or otherness -- your "stimuli"). This actualizes a dichotomy whereby a sensible agent of value freely constructs finite reality. The value we realize in existence is the value of the whole from which we, as its agents, are separated. Without a primary source, all ontogeny falls apart, and so does the metaphysical thesis on which it is based. I'll be happy to discuss this further, provided that you read my on-line thesis. Thanks for a stimulating discussion, Ron, and for your willingness to keep an "open mind" on my views. Best 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/
