Greetings Ham,
I have always had trouble following your unique metaphysical language.
At 03:03 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:
Dear Marsha, [Ron quoted] --
I am most curious, though, what Ham thinks is the real self.
Some of his statements I could agree with, but not as an
independent self. - But maybe Ham is not responding to
my posts? Maybe I've been too acrimonious. I suppose sugar and
spice, and everything nice isn't one of my
active patterns.
No, Marsha. I sense no acrimony in your responses, just the same
old party rhetoric repeated at the bottom of all your posts. But
occasionally you do come up with an intuitive idea that blows us all
away. (More on that later.)
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.
What do you mean by "accept existence for what it is"? Human beings
once perceived the world to be flat, were they correct? I think your
complaints in the above paragraph are humorous considering the
esoteric and confusing language you use when presenting your
Essence. Ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected static
patterns of value is what we have to work with, not things-in-themselves.
The small self is as my signature statement at the bottom proclaims:
a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected,
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of
value responding to Dynamic Quality. The large self is Quality
(Dynamic and static), imho. So simple, so elegant!
Parsing is the nature of thought and language.
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM.
[Ron]:
A "radical metaphysics" is a metaphysic of the development
of the large self of awareness one of your own private experience.
The large self is Quality, the small self is the subjective observer
in an objective universe, the large self IS the universe, aware.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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."
Yes, Ham, I agree with you that Difference is necessary. Viva la
Difference! It is the mistake of thinking that these differences are
somehow real instead of a convenience evolved for survival. This
misunderstanding seems to be a maladaptation and the cause of much suffering.
I am considering your description of Sensibility and Being. They do
seem to be two functions of the self, the five senses as sensual, and
thought as becoming. It's the becoming that is the troublesome ego
which confuses itself (spov) for Reality.
Neither my view, nor your view, nor RMP's view is Absolute Truth, and
there is beauty in knowing that, don't you think? My relative
opinion, though, is that the MOQ is a wonderful step-forward
world-view that brings together and East and West, feminine &
masculine, this and that, to point to an elegant and better way.
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.
No Ham, you haven't given me any idea what you think is real about
the self. Where or what is this individuated agent other than Quality?
Marsha
.
_____________
The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
.
.
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/
