Greetings Ham,
Agreeing? Disagreeing? Just words!
Marsha
At 01:47 PM 3/7/2009, you wrote:
Dear Marsha --
The self is an ever-changing, collection of interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality. I think
this addresses the individual as a conventionally convenient,
user-friendly, useful concept, but Ultimately empty of independent
(inherent) existence. The conventional self, which is a collection
of spovs, is an entity built totally of value/morality, and its
interaction with Dynamic Quality (unrealized value) is valuing.
So sure, I don't see a problem with calling the conventional self
a value-agent. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
This is the rote definition you recite every time the "self" is
mentioned. The problem I have with "a collection of patterns" is
that it doesn't add up to self-awareness in the proprietary or
subjective sense. The earth is a collection of patterns, too, and
so is a patchwork quilt; but in no way do these objects have
sensibility or awareness. Nor does "convenient, useful concept"
help to establish the identity of selfness. It seems to me that
such descriptions are a foil to discourage the realization of
subjectivity which is the fundamental locus of existential reality.
If the 'I' which observes this reality were a collective aggregate,
there would be no continuity of self from one moment to the
next. Instead of "this is what I am," we would have to say "THESE
are what I am ... WE feel, WE think, WE exist." Since none of the
constituents you have cited is the true "Me", I become a "second or
third person." But we are all "first persons" in that no other
individual can share our unique reality perspective. An spov is but
a single isolated sentence in the novel of life that has lost its coherency.
That said, I accept your premise that the subjective self is not an
independent existent. It subsists in an otherness that we call
"being" but which is actually our own construct of Value. Yet,
without value-sensibility we could not construct being or the
reality of our existence. Thus, the illusion of individuated
being-aware IS our reality. We exist to realize Value -- to bring it
into the world as being. But the individual self is more than a
dialectical "convention" or an abstract concept. It is the
fundamental agency of existential reality.
I've said before that there is no such thing as "unrealized
value". Without the realization of Value by a sensible agent,
existence collapses. To posit Quality or Value as independent of
sensibility, let alone the
primary force of the universe, is an absurdity. Quality or Value
doesn't divide itself into levels and patterns; that's what man's
intellect does. The primary division of existence is between
subjective sensibility and objective otherness. Illusionary or not,
we can't escape this reality as individuated selves.
Thanks for addressing my question, Marsha. I affords me the
opportunity to explain what Essentialism has in common with the MoQ,
as well as where we part.
Cordially,
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/
.
_____________
Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.
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/
