Bo --
[Ham, previously]:
Again, you are making a cosmic level out of a uniquely human function.
This is where you and I are on different tracks. I don't see Intellect
as a kind of "Quality" floating around in the cosmos, waiting for man
to "latch onto" it.
[Bo]:
I see your need for launching this to avoid being drawn into my
reasoning, but wait.
"Sensible experience" does NOT begin with "the differentiation of
otherness (being) from Essence", it begins with "...the appearance of
finitude (objective reality) as apprehended by a sensible subject"
Again the latter is the necessary step for the former.
[Ham]:
Take away cognitive awareness and there is no experience,
universe, intellect, or quality.
[Bo]:
Will Essence remain?
YES! That's the whole point of having a transcendent source, which you and
Pirsig apparently deny.
Pirsig says Quality is the ultimate reality. Yous say it's Intellect. But
neither of these human sensibilities exists without the individual who DOES
the qualifying and the intellectualizing. Only Essence transcends
finitiude - Man and Nature - and is independent of differential
(experienced) reality.
Look dear Ham, one point. "Man" (as consciousness) disappears
in all systems unless it ends in absurdity, like above about "take away
cognitive awareness..." Thus the intellectual level is neither super or
sub-human because there is no man with consciousness in the MOQ
... outside its static intellectual level that is, but this in return is
all about
it.
I don't follow you. "This [intellect?] in return is all about WHAT?
[Ham]:
Your cosmology would have us deify intellect, making it the Creator of
the universe. I could understand Love, Consciousness, Beingness, or
even Value as the ultimate reality; but not Intellect.
[Bo]:
This assertion must stem from your discussing with other people.
The MOQ says that the former SOM where "man" is the sole arbiter
of reality is its 4th static level, thus if anything intellect "defamed".
Are you, or are you not, starting with Intellect? This is my question to
you, not the result of my discussing your theory with other people. If
Intellect is the Creator "where 'man' is the sole arbiter of reality", what
is it where there is no man? I cannot conceive of an intellect existing in
the absence of a thinking agent, but maybe you can. I asked you to
elaborate. What is your conception of it?
Yes, I know, but if honest you will have to admit that Essence does not
survive these premises. It's supposed to be prior to the cognizant
subject or man. And you are right! Like Pirsig were in his first insight
about Quality prior to the man/world dichotomy .
It seems that you are contradicting yourself here. An uncreated absolute
source has no beginning or ending by definition. Therefore it must
"survive" the "premises" of finitude. As you say, Essence "is prior to the
cognizant subject or man. And you are right!" Well, if I am right, why did
you lead off by insisting that Essence does not survive??
When I asked you to describe what the intellect is in its unrealized state,
you said:
This is your intellect ("the psycho-neurological capacity of the
cognizant subject") MOQ's intellectual level is the VALUE of the
distinction between your intellect and its world. Meaning that this
distinction is not basic, the DQ/SQ is. Intellect in an unrealized state
is
the dynamic future.
The "dynamic future" is INTELLECT? Was the dynamic past also Intellect?
What about the dynamic present? Bo, you and I live in a dynamic universe.
It changes constantly: the planets circle in their orbits, trees grow tall
from seedlings and are chopped up for lumber to build houses, living
creatures evolve into new species, while every single one of them is born
into this world, flourishes for a spell, and then dies. If this is not
"dynamic", I don't know what is.
If my intellect were not realized, I would not be able to use it for making
sense of the world. You say intellect as "a level" is VALUE - "the VALUE of
the distinction between your intellect and its world."
To me, that's a backward definition. Value is the DIFFERENCE between my
sensible awareness and the world I experience. Value is, in fact, what
draws me as a subject to the objects of my reality. Value is derived from
Essence in its differentiated (negational) mode. I believe it is the "raw
material" from which we intellectualize physical reality. It seems to me
that you are equating Value with Intellect, and I can't comnprehend such a
cosmology.
The universe is the inorganic QUALITY level, or vice versa.
Why only inorganic? Does organic nature account for nothing in Pirsig's
Quality thesis? Is there no psychic component to Quality? And what about
energy fields, thermodynamics, and gravitation, all of which play a role in
sustaining the universe?
[Ham]:
I'd also appreciate it if you would explain your concept of intellect
without resorting to "levels".
[Bo]:
For the nth. time, intellect without resorting to levels is your
intellect,
namely the cognizant subject that looks out on a world. Known as
SOM!!
Now you seem to be suggesting that "my intellect" is primary to your levels!
I'm confused. When I "look out on a world," am I looking at Levels,
Quality, or Intellect ...or all three?
It's great fun to discuss with one who don't shy away
from the fundamentals.
It may be fun for you, but I'm still far removed from your "fundamentals".
Can you possibly explain this cosmology in your own terms in a fundamental
way that I can grasp? Otherwise, I'm afraid you've lost me.
Patiently 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/
