Dear Marsha, [Ham quoted] --
Pirsigians like to talk philosophy by splitting hairs. They're not content to accept existence for what it is -- a self/other duality, so they've replaced duality with a tetrology of levels. They're not happy with experiential reality as a continous process, so they cut it up into "static patterns" said to "respond to Dynamic Quality". They're not comfortable with a unified Self, so they divide it into a "small self" said to be "the objective observer" and a "large self" said to be "the universe". And they call the result of all this parsing metaphysics. Ron: I like how Ham uses me as the mouth piece for "Pirsigans", nice rhetorical touch. Ham: When it comes to paradoxes, I tend to follow the principle of Occam's Razor, which states that "entities should not be multiplied needlessly. The simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known." Ron: Then your essentialism fails this test for it is very complicated and difficult to understand by the lay-reader. Ham: Therefore, I accept existence as what is self-evident -- the relation of a subject to its perceived objects. Whatever I sense, feel, experience, or apprehend is known to me. It is the cognitive awareness of my self identity. I do not share this awareness with other individuals or some qualitative realm of the universe. It is my my own being-aware, my proprietary self. That self is neither small nor large, but integral to "me". To deny this fact is to deny my existence. Ron: That is because you are not open to change your mind about your prejudices. Ham: Now, you said something to Ron that is not only significant but that bears on my concept of differentiated selfness and its perspective: [Marsha]: > Yesterday I started to wonder what it actually means that > everything is always in a state of change? Everything! I'm thinking of the > water analogy: If everything is water, > and there is nothing that is not water, then there is no meaning > to water, for there is no way of distinguishing a difference > between water and nonwater. Seems if you translate that into change, then > what we have actually defined as change is illusion. And if our definition > of change is an illusion, how can anything be conceived of as constant when > everything is changing? Ham: If objective reality were nothing but water, there could be no differentiated experience, value, morality, or freedom to choose. That's a profound observation, Marsha, and it demonstrates why Difference is necessary for the realization of value -- not only difference in terms of what is perceived, but difference in the "agency" of perception. As a system, existence is characterized by Difference and Relation. Ron: Why do you think that because everything is interrelative and interdependant that it equates with absolute sameness? this is the hurdle you must get over, that value exists out side of the idea of subjects and objects it in no way requires them to exist. Ham: The individuated agent of this system is the Self. You and I relate (respond) to universal objects and events in different ways, which distinguishes Marsha's valuistic worldview from Ham's. Neither view is absolute or more "truthful" than the other because all existential truth is relative. Yet, difference is an absolute principle. It separates Sensibility from Beingness as the primary dichotomy from which S/O existence is derived or actualized. And it divides objects (in space) and events (in time) from the particular self that experiences them. In this scheme of things, each self is a free agent of value, and the individual subject is uniquely positioned to realize Pirsig's euphemism that "some things are better than others." Ron: Again there is no reason to suppose s/o is required for individual value to exist other than the fact you have spent a large portion of your life proving that it is required. I know, that it is most difficult to get beyond the concept of the self as a spacial entity relational to an objective universe, and to conceptualize the fact that we are individual loci of experience composed of the very universe we expereince is daunting but plain and simple Ham, Man is not seperate and distinct from the universe, we only think we are and it's a product of the culture we live in, the "white mans sickness" my uncle used to say. ________________________________ From: Ham Priday <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:03:30 PM Subject: Re: [MD] Is it serious? So, with your help, I believe I've answered your question as to what I think is "the real self". If you and I can offer any further insight on this question, feel free to ask. Thanks and best regards as always, 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/
