On Saturday 16 May 2009 10:52 AM Ham challenges: <snip> > For the sake of metaphysics, let's get REAL. No matter how we try to parse > it, the world of passing appearances that we call existence is not -- cannot > be -- the fundamental Reality. What say you all? (Kindly restrain your > insults.) > > Essentially yours, > Ham Hi Ham and all,
As I read what you wrote it seems what you call existence is motion (the world of passing appearances). Imho that suggests that sleep (non-motion) is non-existence (no passing appearances), a little death. How does existence come and go so easily and frequently? How am I born, mature, grow old, die? Can I only be as I am now? Have I matured? I feel silly asking such questions. Am I a stone, a germ, a crowd, a judge? Essence does not change. How is it defined, how is it conceptualized? If essence is fundamental reality, what is change? The act of a being in potency, in as much as it is in potency? How can the possible influence the real? By definition? Change is only in my mind? What is the possible from the standpoint of unchanging essence? SOM is discredited. I prefer evolution, existential reality, for a description of levels and changes rather than essential reality which only changes by my definition. Who defines the definer, the definer, the definer, ad infinitum? Joe On 5/16/09 10:52 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, 5/15/09, Arlo quotes Pirsig: > > "Descartes' "I think therefore I am" was a historically shattering > declaration of independence of the intellectual level of > evolution from the social level of evolution, but would he have > said it if he had been a seventeenth century Chinese philosopher? > If he had been, would anyone in seventeenth century China have > listened to him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his > name in history? If Descartes had said, "The seventeenth century > French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am," he would > have been correct." (LILA) > > John Carl responds: >> Here I would go a little deeper than the author. For the true >> definition of human self, the self needs non-human nature to >> observe, contrast and define. I'm a man because I'm not a >> giraffe, or a flower or ... And these "things" we observe and >> define are viewed through the lens of our culture, true enough. >> Nevertheless the sage proclaims that the self IS defined by >> the ten thousand things and rational intution confirms this. >> Descartes should have said "I think (about other) therefore I am." > > Arlo believes that society precedes intellect. John believes that non-human > nature precedes both. What's wrong with Descartes' own conclusion: "I > think, therefore I am"? Simply that it does not acknowledge the otherness > of which his thought consists. What Descartes MIGHT have said is: "I think, > therefore something is self-evident." But of course that's a logical > truism, because nothing is more > evident than one's thinking. > > All this talk about a hierarchical reality evolving in time and producing an > intellectual creature in the course of it is fraught with difficulty and > paradox. This can be avoided if we simply say that the reality in which we > participate is SUBJECTIVE. That we create our own experience as objects and > events in time and space. That our thoughts reflect this experience in > words and symbols. And that our intellect synthesizes this information into > a coherent, orderly concept of existence. > > Now I realize this is an apocryphal suggestion for a philosophy that rejects > both subjects and objects. But if it's possible to speak of "value", > "nature", "culture", "thought" and "intellect" in the MoQ, why is it not > possible to acknowledge these > contingencies as aspects of subjective awareness? For, obviously, if we > weren't aware of them they would not exist (for us), which is to say, there > would be no evidence of their existence. > > Moreover, if, as John says, "the sage proclaims that the self IS defined by > the ten thousand things and rational intution confirms this," then > subjective awareness (the self-evident experience of phenomena) defines our > existence. > Does this not support Pirsig's thesis that "experience is the cutting edge > of reality" and that "something that is not valued doesn't exist"? > > For the sake of metaphysics, let's get REAL. No matter how we try to parse > it, the world of passing appearances that we call existence is not -- cannot > be -- the fundamental Reality. What say you all? (Kindly restrain your > insults.) > > Essentially yours, > 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/ 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/
