Hi Platt --
Thanks for considering my essentialist paradigm. I don't know if Andre or
Steve regard it as relevant enough to consider, but we'll see.
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.
Appears to me just another way of describing S/O dualism.
I acknowlege the duality because we all deal with it every day as
"beings-aware". But.I am holding out for its resolution as the unity of
Essence, which contemporary philosophers shun like a plague on mankind. You
know, Pirsig didn't really resolve subject/object duality. In his SODV
presentation paper he labeled Intellectual & Social levels "subjective
static patterns" and Organic & Inorganic levels "objective static patterns."
If you consider that awareness, thought, and intellection are "subjective"
and material existence (beingness) is its "object", the SOM paradigm is the
same as mine. Except, of course, that Pirsig refused to define the
individual as the locus of subjectivity. He wanted us to think of human
beings as biological patterns of a socio-intellectual level. (Individuality
doesn't suit the collectivist mindset.)
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.
Platt, I might as well be talking to myself, as I have repeatedy stressed
that there can be no awareness or experience without a sensible subject.
Experience -- no matter how "direct" it is -- does not qualify as the
primary reality. Quality (Value) is relative to the subject of awareness,
so it can't be primary. The cognitive subject has to be created (caused or
formed) by some non-relative power or source. Even your esteemed author
doesn't seem to comprehend this logic.
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.
The nature of morality is man's value-sensibility. Man invented a "moral
system" so that he could establish a humanistic culture and survive as a
social entity. I know you've been persuaded that we get morality from the
universe, but if you think it through it simply doesn't follow. If we lived
in a moral universe, there would be no need for value preferences or
morality systems, and life would be meaningless.
"How we got here" is explained in my creation hypothesis, along with "why we
are here" and "what will become of us". Where does Mr. Pirsig even consider
these questions? Do you really think "Some things are better than others"
is a moral imperative we can live by?
As always, I could be wrong.
Yes, Platt, I'm afraid you are wrong on this matter. But I do appreciate
your response.
Sincere regards,
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/
