Ron, from Ham --
Whoa, fella'! You're racing off far beyond the starting gate when you say difference is "composed of...". There is no composition in oneness or nothingness.
[Ron]:
They are compositions of logic, of intellectual concepts. Just as much as electrons and atoms.
Is it your belief that logic and intellectual concepts constitute the primary reality? That they always have been present, even without anything to realize them, or that they emerged out of nothingness? In that case, of course, ultimate reality is not a monism but is differentiated through and through.
[Ron]:
Primary reality is immediate experience, I follow Pirsig in this regard. I also agree that intellectual extension beyond this into cosmological concepts is a tool for understanding this experience. With this in mind I and RMP take a physical cosmological approach. A method which bases its concepts on observable phenomena rather than intuitive logic.
How do you explain "immediate experience" in the absence of a sentient agent? Are you saying that the experience of "intellectual concepts" acn occur without a cognizant subject?
[Ron]:
I think conceptually you view space as a vacuum and I do not. I conceptualize space as a fabric. I do not relate the term space with Nothingness.
Space is extension in three dimensions. If you don't view it as "empty", then you are not conceptualizing it as nothingness, but as the things contained it. I see this as misleading. One normally speaks of the physical universe in terms of what exists, not as extension filled with objects. Nothingness does not exist, although it is what separates the atoms, planets, and galaxies in space.
[Ron, concerning Essentialism and the 3 paradoxes]:
Somehow it feels like you are cherry picking what aspects of intellectual constructs that best suit your needs to expound Essentialism. You dismiss logical paradox as intellectual constructs, yet you utilize the very same logic to prove Essentialism. I'm not sure the academic society will let you get far with that. It does not contradict Pirsig because he does not find it central. He places it as one of many intellectual patterns. My personal feelings are that we all relate to experience uniquely. Spiritually I believe in the conscious development of that relationship.
Naturally I discuss those concepts which are best explained by my hypothesis. That's an author's perogative. Certainly Pisig did the same. I cannot "prove" Essence any more than Pirsig can prove his Quality. And I am not dismissing paradoxes; I'm simply saying that most paradoxes, such as causality being linked to a 'first cause', are the result of man's finitely limited perspective. That Pirsig does not consider primary reality "central" to his thesis only proves his weakness as a philosopher. Finally, you speak of experience as if it were something you "relate to", whereas I understand it as a verb: that is, you and I experience that which is "other" to us. I fail to see how you (as a pattern of value, by your definition) can dance in a relationship with nothing but value.
Apparently, you believe experience is out there in space somewhere to be grasped by the senses, whereas I view it as the existential reality we construct from Value. Truthfully, I don't believe you or Mr. Pirsig are dealing with metaphysical reality at all. What you are calling reality is an epistemological paradigm of physical existence.
Obviously we are not on the same wavelength here. Either I don't comprehend your cosmogeny or you don't understand my ontogeny. Either way, we're not connecting intellectually. Unless you can provide a brief explanation of what you think experiential existence reduces to -- what ultimate reality is -- I'm afraid further discussion is futile.
Sincerely, 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/
