On 8/22/09 3:18 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham and all,
Thank You! Ham, for not using the word "essence"!
Your conclusion: "Ultimate Reality is the absolute and
self-sufficient 'ground' of all created being" seems to me
to be a bit pretentious. Imho this is a "postulation"
rather than an "observation". I cannot observe a sentient
that experiences an "Ultimate reality" of all galactic entities.
Joe, you will note that this "sentient" inserted the phrase "In Ham's
ontology" before
explaining it. You must know that an ontology is a conceptualized theory.
Nowhere have I asserted that ultimate reality is experienced.
In fact, a major point of correcting Bodvar's description of Essentialism in
this comparison with the MoQ was to show that ONLY objects and their
attributes are experienced. (I did not mention Essence because I wanted to
avoid what Bo had called the "lingo" of my ontology.)
Regards,
Ham
Dear old Bo --
MOQ postulates that the ruling Western World View is
the Subject/Object - aka Mind/Matter (abbreviated SOM).
You postulate that the S/O split (or in your lingo between
the Sensible Agent and its Awareness) is no "world view"
because it is reality itself - existence's deepest ground.
Is that right? It must be possible to smoke you out.
I know that in your own mind this analysis makes sense, or at least enough
sense to "smoke me out". I also know that you would have dispensed with
me
long ago if this topic was not important to you. But you must realize
that
I have to deal with your lingo, too, and what you've written does not
accurately represent my view. You and I are coming at Reality from two
different points of view. What we need is a common language to
communicate
our respective views in a way that is comprehensible to both of us. Since
I
can only communicate in English, I suggest that we each try to articulate
our ontology in the simplest terms, using analogies and examples when
necessary for understanding.
Let me start by revising your statement above to express what I actually
believe (minus the "special lingo"):
Pirsig postulates that the universal notion of reality is a Subject/Object
paradigm, which is to say, a mind relating to matter. (He has called this
universal notion "SOM", despite the fact that it is neither metaphysics
nor
a metaphysical theory, but simply a common precept drawn from experience.)
Ham maintains that the S/O division is what we all call Existence. (This
is
an observation, not a "postulation".) The Subject of Existence is
Awareness (also referred to as "value-sensibility" or "agent"). The
Object
of Existence is Being (also referred to as experiential "phenomena",
"finitude", "things and events" and "otherness", together with their
properties and attributes). In Ham's ontology Subject and Object are
mutually dependent contingencies which, within the experiential framework
of
space/time, constitute man's "worldview" of reality. Reality itself,
however, is not divided into subjects and objects, awareness and
beingness,
or things and events occurring in time and space. Ultimate Reality is the
absolute and self-sufficient "ground" of all created being.
Now, if you will be kind enough to provide a similar paradigm for your
SOL,
we should have the basis for a comprehensible and possibly even productive
dialogue. If you can do this without resorting to Pirsigian terms, so
much
the better. ("Static", "dynamic", "pre-intellectual" and "patterns", as
the
author uses them, only confuses me anyway.)
Thanks, Bo. Understanding your "worldview" is important to me, also.
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/
