On 8/21/09 10:59 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> Phew to you, Bo! You claim that using metaphors to label the conflicting elements resolves the paradoxes. You deny subjectivity, objective reality, and a primary source, accepting at face value Pirsig's equivalency theory: Experience = Quality = Reality. What kind of "understanding" is that? Essentialism, on the other hand, accepts S/O reality for what it is, but posits Essence as the ultimate source of all realized appearance. Rather than defining Value and Intellect as externalized properties of the universe, I attribute them to subjective cognizance (which, incidentally, happens to be the view of cognitive scientists). And I explain objective reality as a valuistic construct of subjective experience. Now I ask you, where are the paradoxes in my ontology? Essentially yours, Ham Hi Ham and all, The word you have chosen to encapsulate the meaning of your ontology ³Essence², for me is a weasel word. In Latin the conjugation of the verb "to be", ³esse², is very irregular: sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt. The infinitive is ³esse², the participle is ³ens². The English word ³essence² contains the sound of both the infinitive ³esse² and the participle ³ens². I can have no idea what it means. When you use it as the meaning for your ontology, I am totally confused. When I accept that I can use a sound that is undefined, yet meaningful in a normal conversation, like ³quality², ³essence² is a mountain I cannot climb, and so far all your explanations have simply confused me more. Can you describe your ontology in different words? I see you have the same problem with ³Value² and ³Intellect² in an evolutionary setting, and you redefine them as ³subjective cognizance² rather than ³externalized properties of the universe². I don¹t have a substitute for ³essence². I can see how you can translate for yourself ³objective reality² as a valuistic construct of subjective experience, but the word ³valuistic² as a ³construct of subjective experience² is very original, way outside the normal usage. Joe > On 8/21/09 at 1:33 AM Bodvar Skutvik responds to Ham: > > >> Phew, your interpretation of my SOL (interpretation of the >> MOQ) is frustrating, do you do it to provoke me?. Anyway, >> the S/O distinction is the intellectual level's value (this is static >> and thus not existence's deepest ground, which is Dynamic/Static) >> but as real as the rest of the static levels, as real as rocks, >> as our bodies, as our social patterns. Get it??????????????? > > Yes, I got it long ago. The problem with this ontology is that the ground > of existence, which you now call "Dynamic/Static", cannot be Quality or some > combination of dynamic and static quality. Quality (Value) is what the > subject perceives and is not realized (i.e., does not exist) without a > sensible agent. What you conclude as "real" is no more than plain old > existence conceived in two ways: as it is experienced (by the subject) and > as it is intellectualized (by the subject). Eureka! ...you have NOT found > it. > >> I understand what you mean, the fact that "man" is from what >> everything emanates is watertight, but then "man is the mind/body >> aggregate and what of these is primary in your opinion? SOM's two >> camps have quarreled over this since God knows without any result. >> The materialist says that the (material) body is primary with mind a >> by-product, the idealists vice versa. So I wonder what of the >> individual's mind/body components you see as primary. If you don't >> see any problem with the mind/matter constellation you must either >> be (deleted) or (deleted). > > I'll ignore the "deletes", as I assume they are an expression of your > frustration. Mind/body is not an "aggregate" but a dichotomy of beingness > and awareness. These are the primary essents of existence. The biological > organism with which the conscious self identifies is the subject's being. > The knower of this self and its organic body is cognizant value-sensibility. > That's not just Ham's epistemology; it's the way existence is constructed. > What you fail to understand (or accept) is that ultimate reality -- the > absolute Source -- is not existence, not differentiated or aggregated, and > not directly perceived. All we perceive or experience is the objectivized > Value of the Primary Source. > > [Ham, previously]: >> If consciousness isn't the subjective awareness of experience, >> then what is it? > > [Bo]: >> But how is it the awareness' relationship to "its" body. >> If you have the conscious agent (the body/mind aggregate) >> as fundamental you must have a good answer to SOM's paradoxes. > > My answer, which should be apparent from the above, is that there TWO > "realities": the S/O reality that we experience as our existence, and the > ultimate reality that we can only sense as Value. > >> How is the perceived "outer" world's relationship with consciousness? >> Is it always true. What about "consciousness changing" stuff? Where >> does matter interact with mind (consciousness) and vice versa? > > We live on the "fringe" of Reality and "interact" with it by our sensibility > to Value. Consciousness, matter, intellect, thoughts, precepts, and > difference (identity) are valuistic attributes of the empirical world. And > let me add: This is the ONLY WORLD that Pirsig's so-called metaphysics > addresses. > >> If you have SOM as your starting point and don't know >> about its paradoxes, then the MOQ must be absolutely >> nonsense, but then you are outright (deleted). Anyway, >> the MOQ is a solution to SOM's paradoxes and if you >> haven't realized THAT after years at this site .....phew! > > Phew to you, Bo! You claim that using metaphors to label the conflicting > elements resolves the paradoxes. You deny subjectivity, objective reality, > and a primary source, accepting at face value Pirsig's equivalency theory: > Experience = Quality = Reality. What kind of "understanding" is that? > > Essentialism, on the other hand, accepts S/O reality for what it is, but > posits Essence as the ultimate source of all realized appearance. Rather > than defining Value and Intellect as externalized properties of the > universe, I attribute them to subjective cognizance (which, incidentally, > happens to be the view of cognitive scientists). And I explain objective > reality as a valuistic construct of subjective experience. > > Now I ask you, where are the paradoxes in my ontology? > > 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/
