Hi Ham, When I combine the undefined elements:
I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower from my consciousness and I remain that which "knows". This is so simple, basic, and self-evident that subjectivity. The defined elements: Of my reality take away all intellectual, conceptual, and relational elements with the single exception of those weird Pirsigians who insist is a myth Joe On 8/9/08 2:20 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greetings, Joe -- > > >> I want to apply a metaphysics of undefined, defined >> to your statement: >> >> I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower (undefined) >> of my reality (defined). Take away all intellectual, conceptual, and >> relational elements (defined) from my consciousness, (undefined) >> and I remain that which "knows" (undefined). This is so simple, >> basic, and self-evident (undefined) with the single exception of >> those weird Pirsigians who insist (defined) that subjectivity >> (undefined) is a myth (defined). > > And what do we gain by this defined/undefined rationale? Perhaps it > demonstrates that the components of awareness reduce to a duality (SOM). > > Under what you cite as 'undefined' are the Knower (a subject by definition), > Consciousness, Knowing, and Subjectivity (selfness). These are of course > the non-existent "mental" elements or processes, as opposed to Reality which > is defined by objective experience. I'm not so sure Insistence and Myth > fall into the 'defined' category, however. The former is an expression of > intent or will on the part of a subject, while Myth is defined only in the > sense that it identifies the subject's invalidated belief system. > > A comment of yours to Marsha on 8/6 may shed some light on on your motive > here: > > [Joe]: >> Your emphasis on the term "emptiness" echoes how I view >> the undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level. >> In a seven level template for evolution "emptiness of emptiness" >> also echoes the evolution of Subject only, the 6th higher >> emotional level. > > In a previous post you also said: >> The relationship between what is undefined S and what is >> defined O becomes intellectual, SOL. > > I can't make any sense of the levels inferences, but you do refer to "the > undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level". I don't know > that it's possible to define self-awareness as a Social phenomenon, but > would argue that it most certainly defines the individual. What you seem to > be saying is that since the subjective self can be defined only in terms of > its "relational elements" (patterns?), conscious awareness is a non-entity > (unless the intellect can define it). In other words, there IS NO SUBJECT, > as Pirsig maintains. > > Joe, I hope I have this wrong, and that you are not echoing the nihilistic > position that what is objectively indefinable (i.e., Self, Value, Essence, > etc.) cannot be. Please tell me you had some other purpose or strategy in > mind. > > Thanks, Joseph. > > --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/ 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/
