Hi Craig [Marsha mentioned] --
It would be clearer to say: 'being' is defined as "the state or
quality of having existence" & 'becoming' is defined as "the
state or quality of coming into existence."
I'll second that motion. What I tried to do was combine two definitions in
one, and
spoiled the syntax. Actually, inasmuch as existence is a dynamic system, it
can rightly be said that everything is the process of "coming into
existence".
These definitions don't say anything as to what is fundamental.
They don't establish what Truth is and are not in themselves a theory.
However, having a fundamental definition facilitates theory by eliminating
misconceived propositions and analogies along the way.
CAUTION: defining 'awareness' in terms knowledge
(so that knowledge is more fundamental than/prior to
awareness) may have unwanted consequences.
Appreciate the caveat, Craig. You'll note that, although I referred to
"knower/knowing" in explaining awareness, I did not include "knowledge" in
my definition.
[Ham, previously]:
We know that being exists only because we are aware of it.
[Craig]:
See, how quickly you've reversed the priority.
[Ham, reconstructed]
1) we know that being exists only because we are aware of it
2) whatever knows that being exists only because it is
aware of it, is fundamentally a being-aware.
3) :. each cognizant individual is fundamentally a being-aware.
You have provided no support for 2).
I submit that it is self-evident that "awareness" is proprietary to the
"knower" and that all knowers are cognizant "beings". Hence, being-aware is
a self-evident principle.
[Ham]:
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].
At this point you've stopped defining/analyzing & just resort to
assertion.
If I strike the bracketed [knowledge of a diversity...] phrase from this
statement, am I still "resorting to assertion"?
[Ham]
fundamentally Existence = Being-Aware.
[Craig]:
So everything that exists is aware (rocks, plants, the
color green, democracy, etc.)
No, but it's an astute obervation that jumps ahead of my fundamental
definition. Everything that exists is aware to the SUBJECT who experiences
it. That's a critical point in both the MoQ and Essentialism, but one that
Pirsig evaded in order to "overcome" dualism. It's also why Marsha's
insistence on making "experience" primary and equating it with "reality" is
illogical IMO. How can experience occur before there is a sentient
"experiencer" as its subjective locus? In my view, experience is the
synthesis of being-aware. It requires a cognizant (knowing) agent and an
objective "other" (perceived as being), without which there can be no
experience.
By taking this jump you've forced my hand. My primary metaphysical "split"
is a sensibility/otherness dichotomy. It's pre-differentiated and
pre-intellectual. In fairness to Marsha (and Pirsig) I can see what she's
driving at, and I do believe we "construct" the entities and properties of
existence from the Value of this dichotomy. But it is faulty reasoning to
posit experience as "reality" in the absence of a primary source.
Thanks for the insightful critique, Craig.
Essentially yours,
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/
