Marsha --
Does 'experience' tell us anything other than its value is good, bad, or
neutral? Even the idea that an experience has a beginning, a middle and
an end is a part of the 'designs by us'
process, a process where experiences get reified and define
into recognizable patterns.
Experience is the source of all knowledge about our reality. So, when I
present my ontology as "reasonable" to an existentialist like Krimel, I have
to put experience in the forefront of any theory or concept under
discussion, You'll note that he will readily accept the views of
experimental researchers like Piaget or Jill Bolte-Taylor, for example, but
finds the mystical teachings of Nagarjuna foreign to his perspective.
You're right, of course, that the experiential world is a "designs by us"
system, in that that we construct the patterns of our reality from value.
Yet, this concept defies common sense and is so foreign to the empirical
mind that it is treated as fantasy. Its unfortunate that Pirsig failed to
stress the individual as the "designer", leaving us with the impression that
patterns directly relate to Quality and need no cognizant agent.
I've found that the only way to get Essentialism across is by showing that
the fundamental assumptions are reasonable, or at least as reasonable as the
assumptions that support the commonly held worldview. Perhaps the most
fundamental argment of all is the principle that nothing comes from
nothingness. When you consider that this principle is the root premise of
philosophy, religion, mysticism, and physical science, it must be
reasonable.
Thanks, Marsha.
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/
