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. Ham: 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: No, I feel the concept of oneness or nothingness is just that, a concept. They do not exist in reality. [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. Ham: 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 posit a sentient agent only I do not posit it as an isolated subject in space. I posit it as a bundle of value sets. Is a jellyfish isolated from the sea floor? No. they are immersed in the value of water. Is water isolated from space? No it is immersed in the value of atmosphere. Is the atmosphere of earth Isolated from the atmosphere on mars? No they are immersed in the value of space. [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. Ham: 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: Only conceptually. [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. Ham: 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. Ron: This is why you fail to understand MoQ. And can not make an adequate assessment of it's weaknesses it becomes merely your own opinion. You require an outside source to give you meaning, I do not. Ham: 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. Ron: No, we agree on that much. Ham: 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. Ron: What anybody calls reality can only be an epistemological paradigm. This Is the whole point. Ham: 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. Ron: In my meta-epistemology those are non-questions, so sadly perhaps you are right. Sincerely, Ron 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/
