Yo, Bo --
Ham, previously:
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.
Bo:
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.
I'm not so keen on a "flight away from stability". In fact, my
understanding of evolution is that it moves naturally chaotic processes and
events TOWARDS stability (or cogency, if you will). Do you view Darwin's
law of natural selection, for example, as a flight toward instability? The
development of living species with the ability to think for themselves and
manipulate their environment is a highly ordered process involving the
synergy of disparate inorganic and organic elements into a complex but
stable form ("pattern" to you).
[Ham]:
Descartes...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".
[Bo]:
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.
Intellectual level's conviction? I would call it an intellectual
perspective which, perhaps, leads to a personal conviction (or precept).
But then, of course, I do not recognize "intellect" as a supra-human realm
of existence as you do. By the way, how would you categorize the American
Philosophical Society? Does a society of intellectual people subordinate
their "social level" to their "intellectual level"? I doubt that the social
director of this august group would accept that premise.
[Ham]:
Why do you persist in compounding the metaphysical problem
with anthropological history? Must my theory have the consensus
of primitive man?
[Bo]:
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.
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.
Where is the fury? I just don't see the relevance of your point. Certainly
we are all influenced to some degree by the thoughts that have preceded us.
In that sense, learning (the acquisition of knowledge) is cumulative.
Mythos is the "residue". Myths are what remain of the collective culture to
impede its advances. But invention, new ideas, revolutionary concepts,
intellectual breakthroughs are the contributions of individuals who rise
above the mythos and think for themselves.
[Ham]:
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).
[Bo]:
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.
Difference is negated from Essence with no loss of absolute integrity. The
"aspects" of differentiation and the emergence of otherness in space/time
are precisely what Essence is NOT. Man is the value-sensible 'negate'. He
projects 'nothingness' into his experienced reality, bringing value into the
world as delimited (finite) being. But in metaphysical terms, self/other
existence (being-aware) is illusory -- a valuistic product of cognizant
experience. There are no "subsets", except those constructed by the human
intellect. So you need not fear having to turn theological on my behalf.
Your hang-up or "weak spot", as I see it, is your failure to see the time
continuum as a characteristic of human experience as opposed to an inherent
property of the universe. If nothing else, this obsession with history
challenges me to present my ontology from a different slant. And I
appreciate the opportunity.
Best 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/
