Hello Ham,
<snip> > > To all MoQers -- > (Ham) > We each have our own view of reality, and you folks diligently strive to fit > it to Pirsig's hierarchy of levels and patterns. Unfortunately, in making > this accommodation, we all get bogged down in sophisticated terms and > paradigms that not only attempt to do Pirsig "one better" but are > incomprehensible to the average participant. (I plead guilty to the same > mistake.) mel There is, to some extent, an unavoidable need to get oriented before moving off across a new landscape. That means that anyone coming across the MOQ, much less achieving some sort of fluency in it, will need to fit themselves around, in, among...and this often means "translating" or interpreting through what they are more accutomed to. It isn't easy. Training wheels have to come off at some point, though. > ><snip> (Ham)> > So, at the risk of being simplistic, I'd like to wind back the "levels > scheme" of reality and start afresh in the simplest and most universal > language. I suggest that you all consider existence as "Being-Aware". You > may disagree with this concept; but before you do, let me try to show why it > is as close to fundamental truth as any philosophical postulate. > > First, being and becoming are defined by most dictionaries as "the state or > quality of having or coming into existence." That makes it fundamental by > definition. We can't have existence without being, and we can't exist > without becoming. Does anyone here deny this fact? mel This "grounding" is already too loaded with implicit structure to work. It is also circular, as it says you can't have being without being. (You are right that awareness is a key, but in this structure you've nailed one foot to the floor.) (Ham) > Secondly, at least from the individual perspective, it is inconceivable that > you can know that anything exists without having an awareness of it. > "Awareness" is defined as the realization, perception, or apprehension of > what we know. Since we know that being exists only because we are aware of > it, each cognizant individual is fundamentally a being-aware. Or, to put > it another way, being in existence takes the form of a sensible (cognizant, > knowing) agent or entity who becomes aware of being, the locus of which is > his/her self and its knowledge of a diversity of other beings. mel You have already built too quickly, again, with too many implicit inclusions. Start lower, build slower, each step explicit. (Ham) > Finally, whether your personal philosophy accepts the "metaphysical reality" > of this dualism or not, existence consists of at least one cognizant subject > (self) aware of an objective otherness (being). However we may hypothesize > Reality, and whatever we think may have occurred before (or after) > awareness, fundamentally Existence = Being-Aware. > > Now, because it establishes a fundamental precept, I would appreciate your > comments and/or objections to this analysis. It seems to me that if we can > accept Being-Aware as an irrefutable principle of existence, we will have a > universal platform on which to construct a metaphysical theory of ultimate > reality, whether it is essentialism, existentialism, nihilism, idealism, or > qualityism. > mel Maybe we'd do better to start with: Awareness is physical reactivity. thanks--mel 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/
