Hi Bo --
Having a transcendent source must surely be a great asset,
particularly after stating that "take away ...etc". and that
nothing is left yet Essence remains.
I suspect you have misconstrued my Essence cosmogeny, for I never said "if
[man's] awareness disappears nothing is left."
What I said was: "Take away cognitive awareness and there is no experience,
universe, intellect, or quality." Since none of these contingencies come
into existence by their own power, they must be derived from a primary
source. That source is Essence.
Ham, this is no irony. I would have accepted this if you had started
from the Essence/ Differentiated Beingness split as fundamental,
rejecting the Differentiated Beingness internal split (that necessarily
must be the man/world one) After such a metaphysical shift Essence
transcends the finitude of the said differential beingness ... and kept
it
there, but at several instances you have claimed that man is the final
entity and that if his his awareness disappears nothing is left ....and
from THOSE premises Essence goes down the drain.
What "irony" are you challenging? Essence is indivisible, thus cannot be
split. The fundamental (primary) division has to be between two
derivatives: Sensibility and Otherness, linked by essential value. From
Sensibility comes proprietary awareness, from Otherness comes beingness.
These are your existential ("internal"?) subject and object. Together they
create being-aware (of a differentiated world). I have never posited man as
the "final entity", so your complaint is unfounded. Man is finite and
fleeting -- hardly a transcendent, immutable entity.
As said the first section above is valid and an exact match to Pirsig's
first metaphysical regrouping that shifted the metaphysical slash from
the previous Differentiated/Beingness (Subject/Object in his lingo) to
Essence (Quality)/Differentiated Beingness (S/O). See?
No, I don't see. And I'm not trying to match Pirsig's paradigm. Again, in
my ontology Sensibility and Otherness are the primary (i.e., metaphysical)
contingencies of existential reality. Subjects and Objects are the
secondary (i.e., SOM) derivatives of value-sensibility.
I leave it here. I have labored much over this trying to formulate
it in a way that you must understand if you WANT to.
You have not mentioned Intellect in your analysis, so I'm still at a loss as
to how it fits into your metaphysical scheme. Are you going to quit on me
before revealing its significance?
--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/
