Good morning Ham, [Platt previously] > > 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.
[Ham] > 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.) Pirsig acknowledged SOM as the prevalent worldview. He made no attempt to "resolve it." Rather he proposed that it's time to move on to a better worldview, one that encompasses moral values as a natural phenomenon, not simply a human invention designed to resolves our differences peacefully so we could all just "get along." If the latter were true, you would be hard pressed to find a more dismal failure. As for your implication that Pirsig promotes a collectivist mindset, you again misinterpret his philosophy, to put it gently. For example, consider his defense of an individual on death row: "What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over a society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a society to kill an idea. "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns.These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic capability-its capability for change and evolution." (Lila, 13) There are many other passages I could quote to refute your implication. Don't be taken in by a few misguided collectivist contributors to this site. [Platt} > > 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. What you apparently fail to comprehend, and what I and others have repeatedly stressed, is that direct experience comes prior to the idea of a subject, a concept which presupposes a "world out there." You make the mistake of putting the cart of subjects and objects before the horse of direct, intuitive, ineffable, pure experience. To put it another way, Quality reality is what is while you're thinking and talking about what it is. [Platt] > > 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. The more I think it through (with Pirsig's help) the more I conclude that a universe "from which value is subtracted becomes unrecognizable." > "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? Sure. We live by it instant by instant. Besides, don't you think some moral imperatives are better than others? > > As always, I could be wrong. > > Yes, Platt, I'm afraid you are wrong on this matter. But I do appreciate > your response. Well, I make no claim of omnipotence. Have a good day, 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/
