On 12/2/09 1:53 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
It seems to me that an "idealist" is a "realist" whose ideas are misunderstood by those who apply that label. Even so, is there something wrong with being "idealistic"? Perhaps you would prefer that I were an objectivist, a logician, or a mathematician. Philosophers have historically strived to reach for the Ideal in their writings, whether it's positing ultimate reality, the ideal life, or an ideal morality. In his own way, I think Mr. Pirsig has followed this path. <snip> Hi Ham, Following Aquinas-Aristotle¹s theory of knowledge in SOM there are two ways of looking at existence. There is a ³real² existence-how a thing exists in itself, and an ³intentional² existence-how a thing exists in a mind after the abstraction of the essence by the intellect which then creates an ³intentional² existence and the abstraction has existence only in a mind. This ³realist²-³idealist² characterization of existence is based in the metaphysical theory for the dual existence in knowledge SOM. Pirsig¹s theory of knowledge sees existence in two ways: ³Dynamic-undefined² and ³Static-defined² Evolution becomes meaningful in the undefined pragmatic/value setting of existence. Imho Pirsig¹s division of existence, static/dynamic, is more precise pragmatically than the Thomistic duality of idealist/realist² and avoids a mind/matter dichotomy. Applying Pirsig¹s paradigm to SOM, the ³idealist² proposes an indefinable reality, and the ³realist² proposes a definable reality. Following Bo¹s description of intellect SOL I would place DQ, undefined, in L for Language. No matter what we say there is something undefined, open to further discussion. Mathematics avoids that by a provision that 1 must be defined before 2 becomes logical. This limits the scope of mathematics to the defined by eliminating analogies and metaphors as practical in knowing what is true. Mathematics depends on the narrowly focused definition of 1 in the search for truth. This is my understanding of SOM and it seems our vocabularies have a difference. On a MOQ mailing list I will be using Pirsig¹s formulation for a dynamic/static existence. Imho there is nothing wrong with being ³idealistic². It¹s simply indefinable and requires further explication through the use of metaphorical and analogical examples for understanding. The ³objectivist² acknowledges a static defined logic for mathematics as long as 1 is defined. The ³logician² appeals to (undefined) metaphors and analogies to create an atmosphere for a definition of 1 for his conclusion. The mathematician acknowledges an existence of a defined 1. Mathematics is based on static logic, never dynamic logic. There are no analogues in defined mathematics and its use is more limited in a dialog about what is real.. Imho Joe > > On Tuesday, 12/01/09 1:56 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected] wrote: > >> Hi Ham and all, >> >> As I try to make sense of your negation of essence for individuated >> reality I get into a very negative place. Are you being negative when >> you propose that, or are you just trying to communicate your vision? >> I don¹t know whose record you are recounting, but a negative take >> on reality is very idealistic. > > It seems to me that an "idealist" is a "realist" whose ideas are > misunderstood by those who apply that label. Even so, is there something > wrong with being "idealistic"? Perhaps you would prefer that I were an > objectivist, a logician, or a mathematician. Philosophers have historically > strived to reach for the Ideal in their writings, whether it's positing > ultimate reality, the ideal life, or an ideal morality. In his own way, I > think Mr. Pirsig has followed this path. > > Your complaint that I've led you to "a very negative place" indicates that > you, John, Mark and others here have misconstrued the ontogeny of my > philosophy of Essence. Such gross misunderstanding makes my contributions > virtually meaningless in this forum. So, while the rest of the debating > team argues about the virtues of environmentalism and socialism, let me use > this opportunity to explain my theory of reality in what I hope will be more > understandable terms. > > I believe that the universe is a representative "projection" of the > individual's value sensibility. Each of us is a sentient Self dependent on > "being" for our existence, and what we are each sensible of is the Value of > the essential Source. Through the process of experience we convert this > primary value-sensibility into things and events that constitute our > relational world. A perceived "thing" is no more than an objectivized > construct of value, minus our sensibility. That is, we objectivize an > object by differentiating it from "pure" Value. (This would be the > equivalent of Pirsig's "pre-intellectual experience".) > > What experience actually does is abstrct value incrementally from Essence to > produce the appearance of finite "being" in time and space. > Epistemologically, Being is Value deprived of (our) sensibility. Or, to put > it another way, we "negate" being, piecemeal, by injecting or penetrating > essential Value with our own nothingness, adding its (finite) value to our > proprietary sensibility. This is how I understand the dynamics of > experience. > > As for the ontogeny--the creation process, the Self comes into existence as > a negation of Essence. Conscious sensibility is therefore an individualized > "reduction" of Absolute Essence actualized by the separation of Sensibility > from its estranged Source. As negated entities, what we experience (and > know directly) is the "intellectualized content" of our value sensibility. > >> From this brief précis, perhaps you can see why I regard Quality (Value) as > subjective realization, rather than the intrinsic property of an objective > universe. Perhaps, also, you can appreciate why I consider Freedom (i.e, > free choice and the morality to which one subscribes) to be an exclusive > option of the cognizant human being. How this ontogeny matches up with > Pirsig's Quality thesis (if at all) is a question best answered by the > charter MoQists. > > Thanks for the opportunity, Joe. > > Kindest 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/ 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/
