Joe --
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 it is a myth.
I take it your cryptic exercise is designed to impress me with the fact that
some things can't be defined. Well, so what? I can't define love or joy or
beauty or value, either. But I can sense them and respond to them. Not
only do they have profound meaning to me, they wouldn't exist if there were
no subject to.
experience them. Can you imagine a universe without awareness? What
possible meaning or purpose would it serve?
Think about it, Joe. What would be the "measure of quality" or value of
such a system? How could a sophisticated, self-sustained order of being
even be discerned, let alone valued, in the absence of awareness? A world
without awareness is a world without value.
Now, I know Pirsig & Co. would have us believe that Quality evolves toward
"betterness" on its own, as if possessed by its own morality and indigenous
value appreciation. That of course would mean DQ is not a monism at all,
but a power or force with divided functionality. It wouldn't exactly pass
muster as the "absolute metaphysical source", would it?
You and I are the conscious observers who bring value into beingness as the
physical universe. This is the cosmic role we play in the life experience.
Nothing has more value for a human being than self-awareness It's the last
thing any of us wants to lose. Whether 'selfness' is definable or not, each
and every individual is a subjective being-aware in this creative process.
Sorry, Joe. You can call me an SOMist, a theist--even an unenlightened
solipsist.
But you won't convince me that reality exists for you, me, or anyone who is
not aware of it. As Stanford's astrophysicist Andrei Linde said in a recent
interview, "I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores
consciousness. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere,
completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to LOOK at
it. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."
I find it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss philosophy with anyone
who will not acknowledge self-awareness as the cognizant locus of
experiential reality.
Thanks for the rubic paradox.
Regards,
Ham
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/
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/
