Greetings Bo and Gavin, et al --
[Bo to Gavin]:
On 31 July you wrote to Krimel: gav: if you are talking of S and O (as primary; and you are), then we are in SOM, yep that old familiar terrain where objects are objects and subjects are subjects and never the twain shall mingle. Agree, but where are we when we are in SOM? That's the #¤&%¤# question. Not in another metaphysical universe, because the MOQ is supposed to have subsumed SOM. At an evil pattern that has hijacked an otherwise neutral intellect, or smack in the middle of the 4th. level itself? If anyone else has an opinion, please ...
If the question is "Where are we?", the answer is we are here and now. Here is the locus of experiential space, and Now is the instant of reflection in the continuum of time. However, "WHAT are we?" is the more significant question which needs to be addressed first.
Bo, I've been wanting to take this up with you for some time, and now may be my opportunity. I've long held that your metaphysics is right on track but that it's your epistemology that fouls you up. Let me use the first person 'I' instead of 'we' to make my point more clearly. (And, if you don't mind, I'll dismiss the "levels' issue entirely.)
I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower of my reality. Take away all intellectual, conceptual, and relational elements from my consciousness, and I remain that which "knows". This is so simple, basic, and self-evident that it is commonly acknowledged by everyone on this planet, with the single exception of those weird Pirsigians who insist that subjectivity is a myth.
The real Me is not intellect (mine or yours), knowledge, experience, being, thoughts, gray cells, neurons, or patterns of quality. It is not even a physical body. I am a self-aware. The essence of my awareness is Value, a non-existent attribute of Absolute Reality. In order to be aware, as an existent, I must partake of Being. That is my organic nature. Once embodied in beingness, I have the capacity to think, relate, value, intellectualize, conceptualize, and communicate with the objective world.that represents my unique value-sensibility. This capability is limited by the fact that it is by nature relational (SOM), and incremental (in space/time).
As you may know, I define "existence" as that which is experienced as occurring in time and space. Unlike individuated selfness and its perceived existence, ultimate reality is not an existent or a separate entity. Essence simply IS. But the 'I' cannot rise above the conditions of finitude without losing its beingness, since to do so would end its existence as a self-identified entity.
I'm sure this will evoke some questions, although addressing them to a "non-levelist" may not be a welcome prospect. I am still open to discussion, however, and though I don't speak in levels, I'll do my best to respond in plain English.
Bo, I hope I've provided a proper reponse to the present question, and look forward to exchanging ideas with you.
Respectfully, 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/
