----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
Marsha --
Both the designs and the designer are conceptually constructed.
Both are patterns. I don't see a problem with the MOQ.
To see the problem you have to go back to the fundamentals.
Remember the 'ex nihilo' principle? You say the designs and the designer
are "conceptually constructed". "Conceptually" is an adverb that
describes conception as the configuring process of the intellect.
Anything constructed is a "creation", and creation implies a Creator.
I assume you agree that objects are intellectual patterns, If so, they
are constructed FROM value, not BY value. Since construction is not an
agent but a process, who or what is the constructive agent? As an
MoQist, you will probably answer that Intellect is the agent. And that's
precisely where the problem lies. For "intellect" is not a disembodied
agency and "value" is not a universal principle. Both are functions of
the individual observer. In the absence of an observer, there is no value
realized and no intellect to configure it.
Greetings Ham,
Value IS a univeral principle. I would state that objects are both
conceptualized social and intellecutal patterns. No, the intellect is not
the agent AND it is not a disembodied agency. _Action and agent are
interdependent._ That is the Middle Way and corresponds to the MOQ's
interaction of patterns.
Back on July 7 you told me that "self is a collection of interrelated,
ever-changing,
static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual values."
By that definition the self is a construction of its objective
experiences. Maybe that's literally how you view it. In any event, it's
how Pirsig would like you to view it, since he seeks to "overcome"
selfness in the monistic existentiality of DQ.
There is no self (literally) and no objective experiences. All is the
interdependency of values.
Here's where I part with the Quality thesis. Individuality and
separateness are essential to value realization. All experience is
proprietary to the self, selves are individuated from each other, and
experiential existence is a differentiated system.
I'm quite aware that this is regarded as an unenlightened SOMist view.
But it is the reality human beings are designed to experience and
participate in.
Designed to experience? I don't think so. I would say evolved to
experience?
I did use the phrase "designed by us", but I meant 'us' as an extension of a
collection of interrelated, ever-changing, static patterns of inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual values.
Why? Because (metaphysically) it is the only way value can be realized
relationally, and (morally) it affords the individual free choice, which
is the purpose of being-aware in a relational universe.
The Universe spins on inspite of our opinions of its rightness and
wrongness. Human morality seems to based on grasping, and it's not
particularly pretty.
But I don't stop here. Unlike Pirsig, I don't exclude metaphysical
reality from this differentiated ontology. I posit Essence as the
"unmoved mover" and primary source of all difference, and nothingness as
the actualizing agent of existence.
I think the interdepency of everything counters your "'ex nihilo' principle"
and the need for a primary source.
You and I are negated "others" of an absolute reality
whose essential value absorbs us into its oneness. Take hold of this
value, Marsha. Seize the Essence! It's all up for grabs in this process
we call the life-experience.
At the moment I'm thinking that awareness and compassion are more essential
to a life of quality.
Essentially yours,
Ham
Have I told you lately that I love you,
Marsha
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/
