Hi Ham
23 Jan. thou wrote:
Bo previously:
> > Your "Essence" seems to be equal to Pirsig's "Quality", (your)
> > primary division Essence/Sensibility, and this (sensibility)
> > includes the subject/object pair. Again very like ZAMM's first "moq"
> > where Quality's first offshoot were subjects and objects. Don't you
> > see?
> I posit Absolute Essence as the ultimate reality. It's the
> fundamental premise of my philosophy. Pirsig seems to posit Quality
> as a pre-emergent force or teleology supporting evolution -- things
> and events in process.
Nothing teleological about the MOQ. It postulates a dynamic flight
AWAY from stability, thus the levels are not "planned" in
beforehand, but the necessary outcome of the escape from the
previous level.
> That's a time-based phenomenon derived from the
> temporal mode of experience. His "metaphysics" is a metaphorical
> description of the universe as we experience it. My thesis is an
> attempt to get beyond process in space/time and explain the
> metaphysical reality supporting it. Inasmuch as all knowledge comes
> from experience, the first step toward developing a plausible ontology
> is to examine the subjective source of that experience, as Descartes
> did. He concluded that the only truth he could be certain of was that
> he existed: "I think, therefore I exist." Yet, he could not think
> without a physical body and the proprietary awareness that its
> sensibility made possible. This is the contingency I have called
> "being-aware".
I admire your intentions, but my objection is that you fail to see that
(re. Descartes) a body with a thinking entity inside itself is MOQ's
intellectual level's conviction. You scoff at a pre-intellectual (social
level) with a totally different "conviction", but here is your Achilles
Heel ... and MOQ's enormous advantage.
> I'm not interested in what my "pre-intellectal" forbearers wrote. Why
> do you persist in compounding the metaphysical problem with
> anthropological history? Must my theory have the consensus of
> primitive man?
See, you are inside intellect cocoon and look upon previous ages
as an even rise towards knowledge. The MOQ however sees the
the social level as the intellectual level's necessary foundation. But
most important is it that intellect is a static pattern too and
Descartes' "I think, therefore I exist" - and isms based on it - are
static intellectual patterns.
> My theories don't come from Homer, Aristotle, or Moses. Again, if you
> want to analyze the collective thought of mankind, I'm not the one you
> should be talking to.
Are you absolutely sure that your theories don't have roots?
Philosophers usually present their ideas as sprung from
"nature" or sometimes from "God," but Phædrus thought
neither of these was completely accurate. The logical
order of things which the philosophers study is derived
from the "mythos." The mythos is the social culture and
the rhetoric which the culture must invent before
philosophy becomes possible.
Again I think I have found your weak spot and I notice you are
furious.
> What elements do you want me to diagram? It would appear that you're
> looking for a "chronology of cosmic events", such as Pirsig's
> Inorganic-->Organic-->Social-->Intellectual. That's anthropology, not
> ontology. In my view, there are no events. There is only Essence and
> its differentiated modality (appearances).
> I'm basically a phenomenologist. I view "things" and "events" as
> differentiated phenomena of experience. What is absolute is complete
> potentiality in itself and can not "add" to its status or possess an
> "other". The "act" of creation is therefore an exclusion rather than
> an addition to Essence. From the human perspective, Essence is
> "reductive". It creates the appearance of finitude (otherness) by
> denying what it is not. My hypothesis is that Nothingness is the
> "negate" which becomes the sensible subject, and the value of Essence
> is the objective other (beingness) actualized by the negate in what is
> essentially a "double negation". The primary dichotomy is
> Sensibility/Otherness, and it is from this dualism that all difference
> and contrariety is derived-- including being/aware, space/time,
> self/other, here/there, cause/effect, beginning/end, large/small,
> pleasure/pain, rough/smooth... (you name it).
The primary dichotomy is Sensibility/Otherness, but it must
emanate from the Essence - or be Essence aspects ..no? So
your Essentialism must be a dualism. Postulating an absolute that
has sub-sets ad still remains whole is nonsense. It's like God
having created a world and yet being independent of it. OK, let me
not turn theological.
Bo
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/
