Hi Ham,
On Feb 11, 2010, at 10:54:00 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Mark --
> On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:38:06 PM, "Ham Priday" wrote:
>> The problem with Pirsig's philosophy is that reality is assumed
>> to be a divided system from the beginning. There is no creator,
>> no design, no purpose. There is only Quality. Apart from the
>> fact that Quality (Value) is a human measurement, nothing
>> comes from nothingness, let alone a divided system.
>> There must be a primary cause or source for anything to be.
>> This is not a concept of mythology or religion, it's the
>> logic of reason.
> Why do you say it is a divided system? How does this work 4u?
I used the word "divided" in this reply to Bodvar because on Feb 8 he said
"I don't see much meaning in ultimate anything which is then divided."
Generally I use "differentiated" as a descriptive term for pluralistic
(experiential) reality, reserving "division" for the primary
Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy. In an empirical sense, every existent
(being) is differentiated from every other. What the value-sensible subject
perceives is a "reality of otherness", whereas Absolute Reality is
"not-other". I don't expect Bo to accept this concept, but it does account
for an "ultimate [source] which is then divided".
Often I use the the negative approach to define. That is, what it is not. This
I learned from reading Aquinas, who I guess got it from Maimonides (sp?).
In fact this is also used by those who try to explain non-duality or neti-neti
(not this-not that). It has its purposes because it avoids labeling what it
is. However, it would appear that you are using the term negation in
a different way (see below). Is it necessary to create a division to explain?
> Quality is Essence, our negation of Quality provides us with a
> means to identify individual and separate degrees of Quality.
> It is because we negate Quality that we are able to experience
> it. A drawing is experienced through its negation of a white piece
> of paper. However, the drawing cannot exist without that piece
> of paper.
I like your ontogeny, although I think the "negation" function is
misinterpreted. That is, we don't negate Quality (Value), we negate the
object that our value-sensibility represents.
Sorry, this makes no sense the way you say it. What is such object? Try
another word
for negation on me (I know I have asked this before, but my memory...)
Experience separates or
extracts the object from otherness, and we intellectualize it as a
particular being (for ourself). You might want to review Martin Heidegger's
cosmology of "Being-in-the-world" ('dasein', in German) which spells this
out in great detail.
I just borrowed On Time and Being, so this might help. I would ask again, how
does this extraction (or revelation) work, but we have already gone there.
Heidegger called this secondary negation "nihilation",
theorizing that "The nothing itself nihilates. ... it discloses these beings
in their full and heretofore concealed strangeness as what is radically
other - with respect to the other."
We are talking double negatives, is this simple math thus resulting in
creation? If so, it is not necessary (again, we have gone through this before).
> In terms of a primary cause or source for everything,
> I am not sure if that is necessary. You are asking what makes
> it up? Why can it not just be?
What you are really asking is: "Why philosophize?" 'Ex nihilo nihil fit',
the metaphysical maxim attributed to Empedocles, predates the MoQ by 2500
years. Whether we acknowledge it or not, nothing can "just be". A primary
source is essential. I quote from your post of 2/7: "There is a reality
outside of experience, there has to be else wise we are just negating
nothingness in a vacuum." Essence is what I call the ultimate reality that
transcends experience.
No, I am not asking "Why Philosophize?", I am asking we start with the premise
that
there need not be a primary cause, that there need not be a beginning or source.
It is quite possible to philosophize on this basis. In fact, the huge leap that
is necessary to establish something like your negation is much the same
thing. There is no underlying mechanics to that, it just IS, which explains
nothing to me. I appreciate that it gives you a root cause, but your
explanation
still leaves me lacking. I know it is difficult to put to words. I believe
the quote
you provide of mine was in the context of: there is a larger reality than what
we experience, it does not have to be hidden, or Nothing, it is just
something we haven't experienced yet. We know that because we have
new experiences every moment of every day. You would say that we create
that reality as we experience it, I would say we travel into it. We could get
into
the conception of infinite possible alternate realities, which is interesting
and can be explained with a light cone, but that is for another day.
Cheers,
Mark
Thanks for your insights and understanding, Mark.
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/
