Greetings, Mel (Andre mentioned) --
Andre quoted ZMM with an assertion:
'At the moment of pure Quality, subject and object are identical'. (ZMM p 284).)...only later are static PoV's deduced. To be aware of this event and this subsequent process one must step into a MoQ 'paradigm'.
I responded:
All experience is differentiated and relational. Even self-awareness, once realized by the child, differentiates his identity from others.
You comment:
Even in this, your qualification clause: "once realized by the child," leaves it clear that you are aware of an undifferentiated attribute of at least some experience.
Mel, an attribute doesn't stand alone. It is followed by the preposition "of" to designate nn object or person from which it is extrapolated. Therefore, an attribute is by definition differentiated. Awareness is not an attribute but the "knowing" self. Self-awareness identifies the particular self who is aware, so it too is differentiated "selfness"'. Conscious awareness refers to a relational world of objects, so its contents are also differentiated. Any way you analyze it, experiential existence is differentiated
As long as you are aware of what Pirsig is aiming toward, and it seems clear you grasp it in your own vital action in the world as you perceive the world unfolding, then the specific choice of names Quality vs Sensibility are mere place holders in our attempts to exercise cognition upon this shared insight as we explore it and what follows... That you are in love with the SOM structure and wish to maintain the vitality of it is of course your choice, but it is not necessary. There is an attraction to it, an aesthetic, that is undeniable, and even comforting.
I am no more "in love with" SOM than you are, but it's undeniably the structure of our existence, so I have little patience with those who would "explain it away". However, as you know, I believe reality is more than existence, or the value of its constituents. Existential values are but a glimpse of ultimate reality experienced by a finite agent. The MoQ never gets beyond "otherness". Its Quality doesn't transcend the experiential world becauser its author failed to posit an essential source. Evidently, he believed that "pure Quality" is non-relational and does not have to be created or realized. I think this is an unfortunate shortcoming for a philosopher with such a wide following.
Sorry, Mel, but those are my views. 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/
