----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] the subjective
Hi Marsha [Craig quoted]--
Greetings,
I would like to hear some thoughts about the
"subjective experience".
So would I, Marsha. Thanks for introducing this topic.
Because the minute I become aware of it, it becomes an object.
Seems there is no way to get at it without falling into an infinite
regress.
Or when you become aware of it, it no longer represents the
subjective experience.
That's because subjectivity is more than immediate experience.
As I tried to explain before, the subject is the "knower" (noue) of
existence. Knowing is the cognitive interpretation of one's being in
relation to otherness. It involves the intellectual construction of
physical reality (experience) from value-sensibility, based on a continuum
of self-awareness that is synthesized from memory. The brain and central
nervous system are the "physical instruments" of this integrating process,
of course, but consciousness is not found in neurons or gray cells.
Subjective awareness is a unique entity unto itself. This is the
"objectified subjective" that Pirsig refers to in your Copleston papers
quote ...
Greetings Ham,
Sorry I didn't respond sooner.
You wrote that "consciousness is not found in neurons or gray cells". I
agree. But I cannot find consciousness anywhere. I've seen it flow in
meditation, but it wasn't any kind of entity.
"...the MOQ regards psychology, with its objectification of the
subjective,
as metaphysically unsound."
What he wants us to believe is there is no subject, no self, no
individualized awareness-- that it's all a myth, an "illusion", collective
patterns of quality. Now, Pirsig is a human being like you and me. He
knows himself as a 'noue' as we all all do, yet he subverts the concept of
individuality in order to posit DQ as his "monistic" source. He also
knows that an evolutionary dynamic source cannot be absolute or immutable,
which is why he refuses to define it. But quality is a relational
phenomenon -- the self experiencing its value as an other. This
sensibility is not the fundamental metaphysical reality. The MoQ is only
a metaphor -- an analogy. if you will -- for experiential existence, not a
thesis that explains the origin of difference from an 'unmoved mover'.
As I understand it, static quality is relational. Quality is undefinable.
If by self you mean any kind of entity, I cannot find one. There is a flow
of conceptual and sensual experiences. They are interrelated and
ever-changing. There are no boundaries or delineation that I can find other
than what I name as me. And the naming is merely a convention. A
collection of patterns called self.
I have no relationship with your 'unmoved mover'. Do not compute.
The dictionary defines phenomenon as "an object or aspect known through
the senses, rather than by nonsensuous intuition."
The dictionary defines the conventional understanding of entities. Analogy.
You say "Quality is the
fundamental", and don't see a problem. Craig has also made reference to
the Copleston Annotations ...
[Craig, on 8/3]:
[According to Green, to say that a thing is real is to say that
it is a member in a system of relations, the order of Nature.--
Copleston] "The MOQ says experience is reality.
It doesn't need a system of relations to be real."
I still think "experience is reality" is too glib, out of context.
Better would be:
Experience doesn't need a system of relations to be real.
It is already real.
Ultimate reality cannot be based on a phenomenon. Quality requires a
sensible subject in order to to be realized. Therefore, quality is a
phenomenon of S/O "knowing", just as all experience is. Neither quality
nor value is the fundamental reality. And therein lies the metaphysical
problem that the MoQ leaves unresolved.
Isn't knowing the same as experiencing which is the same as valuing?
Quality is fundamental!!! Subject and objects are nominally imputed by
convention.
Now it comes to me. The reason I put off responding was you seem to state
things backwards, and it's hard for me to to untangle. And I'm not sure it
is necessary that we agree. In the end, words can only kill it.
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/
