Hi Ham,
You wrote:
> Okay, let me bounce this off you and Platt. It was triggered by Joe's
> comment that because the Self "inner you" cannot be defined it is
> "mystical". I argued that the subjective self is no more mystical than
> the
> objective reality it experiences. Now, I know I'm violating Pirsig's
> thesis
> by holding out for an S/O duality.
> But, kindly bear with me.
>
> If there is a primary Reality to account for this differentiated world, we
> have no reason to believe that this primary "essence" is itself
> differentiated, or that it is subject to the.space/time parameters of our
> finite experience. We cannot define or describe such an absolute. We
> only
> know that our existence is a self-sustained system of multifarious events
> in
> process. From this empirical knowledge, scientists and most philosophers
> have concluded that there are two aspects of experiential reality: Being
> and
> Awareness.
Sounds to me like Being is the same as Objective and Awareness is the same
as Subjective. So far, no change in S/O duality. But, you have admitted as
such above. You are "holding out" for that "paradigm." I wish others with a
similar cast of mind would be as forthcoming.
> That we are aware is self-evident. Precisely what we are
> aware
> of is not so evident. We only know that it exists, that it has being.
> Are
> you with me so far?
According to the MOQ what we "know" in the sense we can identify what we
know as "being" or "it exists" is a step back from primary reality which is
direct experience (awareness) prior to any concepts of being, existence,
awareness, division, differentiation or what have you. Thoughts are after
thoughts following our perennial visceral Quality perception.
> Let's assume Pirsig is right that the primary reality (of existence) is
> Value. Isn't it conceivable that Value is existentially divided into
> "value-awareness" and "value-beingness"?
Appears to me just another way of describing S/O dualism.
> If that is true, the psychic,
> "knowing" self of man is value-awareness, and the phenomena he experiences
> as objects and events are the "beingness" he constructs from this
> awareness.
> Furthermore, since all individuals are aware of the same value, the
> universe
> we construct (for ourselves) has a common, definable identity. Finally,
> since everything in existence comes to an end -- including the self that
> observes them -- the primary division between value-awareness and
> value-beingness also ends, restoring the oneness of the Absolute Source
> which, as Eckhart and Cusanus surmised, "knows no differences and has no
> otherness".
>
> Robert Pirsig notwithstanding, what do you think of this reality
> paradigm?
If you like S/O and hold out for it as you say, your paradigm is just fine.
The MOQ, however, suggests the S/O paradigm leaves out two important
explanations: 1) the nature of morality, and 2) how we got here other than
by dumb luck. So while your Essence philosophy is an attractive still life,
I see the MOQ as a enchanting ballet. I enjoy both, but prefer the ballet.
As always, I could be wrong.
Best regards,
Platt
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/
