[Krimel]:
So I have been reduced to just a label? Has it occurred to you
that people have actually taken the time to "consider your view"
and find it devoid of meaning. You reify of "nothingness" and
turn it into a creative agent. You glorify "free will" which in your
"philosophy" is nothing more than ignorance in the face of
predestination.
Once again I ask the world only "Essentialist" to address the issue:
A thing can have being without awareness. My computer has being
but, AI notwithstanding, it has no awareness. I assume you also
have a computer but I have no awareness of it. There was water
on Mars that none of us as aware of until recently, yet it did not
just suddenly appear and throw itself in front of the Mars rover.
In short a thing can have being without awareness either
self awareness or the awareness of some other.
Awareness on the other hand requires being. It presupposes being.
A being must exist prior to its becoming aware of other things that exist.
Krimel, I referred to you as an existentialist because your worldview is
that Existence is primary to Essence. All that you've stated above reflects
the common notion that reality = existence = beingness, the emergence of
awareness being only a late phase of biological evolution incorporating
advanced neuorological development. We all recognize that this is the
objectivist theory of Science and is consistent with experiential evidence.
It would be pointless for me to "address this issue", since you are
obviously not open to alternative views. The aim of philosophy and
metaphysics is to get beyond the limitations of experience and look at
reality as more than a relational system made up of objects that arbitrarily
come and go in space/time. If we can get an intellectual handle on ultimate
reality, we may also gain insight as to the purpose and meaning of existence
and, especially, the role of the value-sensible creature in the cosmic
scheme.
Robert Pirsig was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the Neoplatonists to present
a perspective that is in part idealistic (i.e., Quality as a universal
principle) but ontologically existentialist (Being as patterns of quality).
From his earliest writings, it is clear that his major objective was to
develop a reality paradigm that would make Cartesian duality obsolete. Such
a perspective didn't have to address metaphysical issues or define ultimate
reality or a primary source. Quality alone would be the unifying concept,
replacing subjects and objects with a monistic hierarchy that achieved the
author's objective. Or so he thought, until the analytical logicians,
positivists, and skeptics began to question some of the ideas implied in his
two quasi-fictional books, and some notable omissions.
Although I was ignorant of Pirsig's theory -- it wasn't taught in my 1950
philosophy class -- I was also working on a metaphysical concept with a
valuistic component. I discovered Pirsig in 2001 while researching Value
for my online thesis, and wrote to him with some relevant questions. (He
responded with a cursory note advising me of his retirement status and
suggesting that I join this forum.) While I enjoyed ZMM and Lila as novels,
I was disappointed by the author's failure to expand on the metaphysical
foundation he had outlined in the SODV paper. You see, Essentialism starts
with awareness and its source, whereas the MoQ is based on evolution as a
a function of Quality, and most of it is allegory rather than theory. What
we have in common begins and ends with the idea that the sense of Quality
(Value) is primary to the experience of physical reality.
That there is a need for further understanding has become evident during my
six years on the MD. I have learned much from those willing and open-minded
enough to consider a different perspective, and I have strived to keep my
comments within the context of Pirsig's philosophy unless specifically asked
about Essentialism. I am also open to criticism, but get no joy from
exchanging insults as a creative pastime. I'm primarily interested in
constructive dialogue as opposed to tearing apart someone else's ideas. My
ontology is fully documented on line and in paperback. So, if you are
persuaded that Existence precedes Essence, that a computer exists in your
world if you're not aware of it, or that the appearance of water on Mars was
not a phenomenon that coincided with the rover findings, getting dragged
into an argument to the contrary would be as unpleasant for me as it would
be unproductive for you.
Enjoy your sojourn in Boston, but don't try to talk philosophy with those
shrinks at the APA convention. They'll only tell you what you already know.
Regards,
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/
