[Squonk]:
Individual life experiences, from God's eye view, are on a road leading to DQ according to Pirsig are they not?
It depends on whether you regard the individual life as integral to DQ or an independent, anomolous entity. In my philosophy, "leading to" is equivalent to "deriving from", in that time is an intellectual construct of experience.
For many people, DQ is God. That patterns can jump straight to DQ (God) is an moq fact: It is associated with degenerate behaviour because it's too free. TE1 sets out a rather bizarre set of condition(s) which allow a jump straight to DQ (God) while allowing the top level of moq evolution to progress unhindered. The internal logic of the moq would have to explicitly disallow this, and i don't know if it can.
I don't know, either, but I make no claim to square Essentialism with the MoQ. I interpret Pirsig's Quality as the Value of existential experience, and I dispense with the hierarchy. Turning Value into physical beingness is the role of the sensible agent. However, because Essence is absolute and non-differentiated, Value is not a quality or attribute of the source as subjective agents experience it. In other words, it's an ontological (cosmological?) principle that the agent must "work its way through" life in order to realize the Value of Essence. We do not have the capacity to short-cut the process.
I don't mean this personally Ham, please take it as self deprecatory also: Your life experiences and my life experiences are dreadfully important to us, but this is because we are compelled to struggle and survive, and our pleasures reward the struggle. But in a grand scheme our life experiences may become insignificant, which feels bad, but that may be because humans are structured to regard themselves as the most important things in the cosmos.
That's right. Being-aware is what we are, and survival is the primary necessity of every living creature. Indeed, this instinctive need to persist in the world is how we've managed to survive in the first place. Since our awareness depends on our being in the world, what can be more vital or "important" to us?
We have in fact had previous discussions, but i was nasty to you so you quite rightly shunned my posts after a time. I've turned over a new leaf since then.
Very commendable, and you are forgiven. I must have blocked out our previous disagreements, and I hope the new leaf proves to be sustainable.
Re. your philosophical position: If i have a handle on this, value is not the essence of reality - the dichotomy is, because it generates value. Is that right?
No, the dichotomy is what I call a "negation" of Essence; it make possible the differentiation whereby the individual perceives itself as "other than" its source. By my logic, this is how man (the negate) becomes a free agent of Value. Existence is a valuistic system because the realization of Value requires a relative (i.e., relational) universe. If we were "one with Essence", Value would remain unappreciated. Instead we are negated from Essence and exist as a self/other contingency. On the other hand, since Value is our essence, and cannot be lost because it is derived from the source, I am convinced that what we value ultimately determines what we are in Essence.
I'm not complaining, but we've moved from considering whether TE1 is moral on moq terms to whether TE1 is moral on Ham's essentialist terms.
Interesting that you've noted that. Chalk it up to wanting to get my kicks in where I can in a somewhat hostile environment. Just consider it my personal "survival instinct".
Well, if one wished to be genuinely critical of the moq one would have to explore contrary positions, so at the very least your thesis has value. And i am happy to state clearly here that i value it for this reason, and may come to value it more as i explore it more deeply.
So, maybe the chickens do come home to roost ;-)
The experiment is an abomination for you then. I can't see an analogue for this experiment in Ham's essentialist terms, although it strikes me that the outcome of the experiment may be something similar to the teleological goal of Ham's essentialist development. Here, value would be maximised in the course of things.
I would say that Value is maximized in the absolute source, but can only be experienced relationally, or incrementally, in the life process.
[Ham, previously]:
So you can understand why isolating the individual from the experience of otherness as a means of acquiring something called DQ is abhorrent to me, even as a "thought experiment." >
[Squonk]:
Yes, i see that. I hope i have not given you nightmares?!!?
You were getting there, but have since softened your experimental parameters, which I greatly appreciate.
Thank you. I feel i need to point out one thing here Ham: Unmediated experience of DQ has been traditionally the experience attributed to God: God is every perfection. Many mystics have given themselves to this and considered material experience a shadow of suffering. From certain philosophical traditions the TE1 may make sense. I understand it is an affront to your sensibilities.
I think it demeans sensibility. God (or Essence) does not have experience. It simply IS, without qualification. I make no attempt to define it, except to use Cusanus's principle of the "not other". The split between "other" and "not other" is a negational illusion of process in space/time. Ultimate reality encompasses Value but is not limited by the perspective of finitude. I do not subscrive the the mystical view of existence as a "shadow of suffering".
If the internal logic of the moq leads to abominations then maybe it's a good thing to be able to recognise this and discover if it may be possible to change the moq in order to avoid them or state the moq in such a way that it emphasises Human life.
Yes, that would be my wish, and I belive it would also enhance the author's philosophical legacy. But, as an outsider here, I do not presume to "correct" the MoQ.
In the grand evolution of sq/DQ it seems clear to me that humans as we know them are going to enhance themselves with technologies in ways that will make them seem either superhuman or non-human. So, human.1 may be step on the way to human....
I'm very skeptical of technological schemes aimed at rebuilding man for some other purpose than what he is designed for. Man's natural habitat is an ideally balanced system for human life -- a singularity that still mystifies the biologists and physicists who investigate it. We've seen the evils done by despots who seek to create a "superior race". Do we want to perpetuate this kind of tinkering with Nature? Will it make us wiser, happier, or better human beings? I think not.
P.S. will give your essentialism more considered thought.
Check out my website, www.essentialism.net, if you've not already done so. It should provite more grist for your mill.
Thanks, Squonk. Your turned leaf makes it a pleasure to talk to you. 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/
