Ham,
Please, do better to disguise your anger. I'm sensitive.
I am not trying to ignore anything. I'm simply trying to understand. And there
is a LOT of material to wade through.
If you do not value my thoughts, please tell me at once and I will quit wasting
your and all of your friends' time.
Furthermore, it's not possible that I would think that you would be explaining
Pirsig's MoQ, I don't even know what Pirsig's MoQ *is*.
I have only read ZMM, as I explained, and nothing else.
As an aside, does it really matter who *owns* the Quality idea?
I am not interested in the history of ideas, only the ideas themselves.
Only, it helps sometimes to know how different people have thought of these
things throughout time.
You said you were after: "a fundamental
definition for existence. Existence has variously been conceived in
this forum as material, illusionary, phenomenal, and qualitative."
My question had to do with your idea of being-aware, not MoQ. If you can define
existence, you can describe it. To describe things, you can use adjectives such
as "material," or "illusionary." That's what adjectives are for, describing
things. So, based on your definition (being-aware), how would you describe
existence? That's all I was asking. Are you saying that any such description
would necessarily be an explanation of the MoQ?
Don't misinterpret *me.*
Morality had nothing to do with what I was talking about. Please, READ what I
write, don't skim, or don't bother. The example was a demonstration of how
hidden beliefs (be them about morality, ontology, or cosmology) can cause
confusion when trying to discuss more complex issues within those fields.
I thought that was clear. I have no wish to actually discuss the issue, I was
using it as an EXAMPLE in my little side-reel metaphilosophy.
Trying to rephrase things isn't asking for trouble, as I explained, and you
seem to agree with my basic idea. I'm trying to find that common ground, that
third-grader language so we can at least *think* we understand each other.
Obviously, if you don't agree when I try repeating back to you what I think
you've said, something has gone wrong. But how can I know I understand if I
don't try? If you just want me to nod my head and smile and say "yeah, I get
it," you've got another thing coming. I may do that in the classroom, but I
will not patronize anyone by doing it here. Its a waste of my time.
[Ham]
> No. "It" refers to "everything that exists".
>The meaning of my statement
> is that everything that exists is aware to the subject*. (That should clear
> up the ambiguity.)
I'm afraid that it doesn't. The problem, I think, is the phrase "aware to." I
know what being "aware of" means, but "aware to" is, to me, sort of like
saying, "aware from." Do you know what the statement "I am aware from the
subject," means? If no, you can understand my frustration.
I'll try again with my rephrasing:
"Everything that exists is considered aware to the subject."
Which then translates to:
"The subject that is aware considers everything that exists to be aware."
Which, you can image, causes problems. At this point, it is mainly an issue of
syntax, of grammar. Which is almost more frustrating than a conflict of
beliefs. Can you try to rephrase your sentence starting with "the subject"?
I think that until this basic confusion is resolved, none of the rest will make
sense, and once it is resolved, if it can be, the rest will be irrelevant. We
will probably be in agreement.
However, if it helps, what I am also driving at is actually a series of deeper
questions concerning reality, which build upon your ontology but are not
fundamental to it. As such, you could, if you so choose, completely ignore
them. I find, however, that for my own personal enlightenment, they are worth
asking.
I am not going to create new discussions for them because I am more interested
in other things. Its simply that you have brought these questions back to
surface, and I cannot be sure your concept has any use to me unless it can say
*something* regarding these questions. Of course, whether your definition of
existence does or does not help answer these is only something I can judge.
These questions include: is existence dependent upon cognition (for example,
via being-aware)? What would exist in the "eyes" of a rock (which is not
aware)? Would the Universe exist if not for cognizant beings, or would the word
"exist" be wrong to describe such a possibility?
Now that I think of it, that last question was briefly (though not to my
satisfaction) touched on in ZMM. But again, we're talking about *your*
philosophy...though I still think this labeling is unnecessary.
What you said seemed to imply that you thought that Lord whats-his-face and I
were the same person. We are not.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is Zenith/Jean, me. I have no other avatars. You'll just have
to trust me on that.
If all you can do is rephrase that one sentence* to my satisfaction, I will
consider this a success, but I am highly insulted and very close to
disappearing.
Not like you'd care.
That is all,
Jean
_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/
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/
