On Wednesday, 11/18/09 at 4:17 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Hi Ham and all,
How are awareness/otherness conceptualized? If in experiential existence
there is 1 in awareness and 0 in otherness change is indeterminate. If
there is 1 in awareness and 1 in otherness what is the distinction between
them to make them a dichotomy? How can I conceptualize a difference?
I can only conceptualize 1 and there is no change in my awareness of
otherness.
The dynamics of consciousness are not reducible to the "on/off" logic of
computer technology. You can't analyze epistemology in binary terms. What
I call "awareness" and "otherness" are the primary contingencies of
existence. So in your simile they would both be defined as '0's. The
distinction between subjective awareness and objective otherness is
self-evident and should need no explanation. It's the difference between
the 'knower' and its experiential referents, i.e., you and your objective
world.
I'm perplexed by your assertion: "I can only conceptualize 1". You don't
(can't) conceptualize awareness; it's simply your knowing, apprehending
self. What you "conceptualize" is the sensory data of your experience.
That valuistic concept is the "universe out there" -- your objective
reality. It doesn't take a nuclear engineer
to comprehend the epistemology I've outlined. The difficulty lies in
relating existence to the primary source, and that requires a sound
metaphysical thesis. But your questions do not address that.
--Ham
On 11/17/09 6:56 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Hi Ham and all,
In the face of undefined gravity it is not a huge leap of faith to
analogize the experience of a rock falling, or atoms in fixed orbits.
Essence on the other hand clouds the perceived reality by
mistakenly denying motion in reality apart from itself. Imho
Pirsig correctly identifies motion in the levels of evolution.
Evolution is a simple, brilliant explanation for levels in existence.
From that start it is relatively easy to comprehend the one and
the many.
Essence on the other hand is tied to divinity and is totally
incomprehensible while resting on the shoulders of an author
who proposes that evolution is not a change in existence,
but simply independent nodules of essence.
You're right that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith -- or much
intellect -- to imagine a falling rock or atoms in orbit having experience
and making choices. Such "analogies" are not philosophy, however.
They're childish notions that resurrect the animistic mythology of our
forbearers.
You're wrong that I deny motion or change in the empirical reality that
we call existence. Pirsig's levels are a pleasant euphemism that has no
special significance for me. I see no objective evidence to support the
theory that "higher levels" (social and intellectual) dominate "lower
levels" (biological and inorganic), or that evolution is a progression
toward some ideal Goodness. Nor do I understand any philosophical
advantage in arbitrarily dividing the universe into a system of levels.
On the other hand, I see much to be gained in understanding experiential
existence as an awareness/otherness dichotomy. For one thing, it places
the individual self distinctly in the realm of subjectivity, allowing the
objective world to be recognized as a value construct of the self. It
supports the principle of man's autonomy and freedom on which the
enlightened nations of the world were founded. And it offers a plausible
purpose for man's existence; namely, the realization of essential value,
which by the power of his reasoning can direct himself and his fellow man
toward a more authentic and moral society.
Best regards,
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/
