Hi Ham, On 14 Mar 2010 at 14:16, Ham Priday wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2010 at 8:33 PM, Platt Holden wrote: > > Basic assumptions. I think you're saying that "being" depends on the > > "beings" of time and space. Of course, this begs the question of what > > conditions are necessary for the beings of time and space? I presume > > this where your "Essence" makes its appearance. > > [Ham, previously]: > > "Becoming" is the process whereby relational existence occurs (or is > > perceived). As human beings, you and I are sensible agents "becoming" > > aware of otherness. What we value of this otherness is experienced as > > "being". > > [Platt]: > > I take it then that "being" in addition to the above conditions requires > > "sensible agents," or more specifically, "value sensitive agents" and > > "otherness." So we have the following conditions necessary for being, > > according to Ham: > > > > Time > > Space > > Value > > Otherness > > Sensitive Agents > > > > By comparison, Pirsig sees only one of the above conditions necessary > > for being, namely, Value. And he wrote a book, Lila, explaining why he > > believes that to be the case. > > > > The meta-theoretical principle of Occam's Razor says in effect: "When > > competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle > > recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest > > assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently > > answering the question." (Wikipedia) Ham > It is you who are begging the question by counting the attributes of > existence, not metaphysical principles. This complicates things > unneccesarily. Platt I listed the conditions (requirements) you cited for "being, i.e., existence. If you are saying "being" and "existence" are different, please explain the difference. If you prefer "reality" instead of either "being" or "existence," I'll go along with that. Ham > Time, Space, and Value are not "requirements" for becoming > but conditional aspects of cognizant experience Platt But, you have insisted all along that without cognizant experience there is no being, existence, reality. Or am I mistaken? (By "cognizant experience" I presume you mean "human experience," eliminating my cat, UTOE, from reality.) Incidentally, what is the difference between a "requirement" and a "conditional aspect?" Ham >The beginning of > numerality is duality, and the primary split or fundamental division is > between Sensibility and Otherness. Once that dichotomy is actuated, the > differentiation of sensing and otherness becomes experiential existence > (i.e., individuated 'selves' experiencing multiplistic beingness). Platt What is the difference between "experiential existence" and "existence?" And, who "actuated" the division of the One (Essence) into Sensibility (Subject) and Otherness (Object). Is it Ham? Descartes? the Greeks? All of the above? Ham > Look, MoQ's Quality has Value in common with Essentialism. The principle > difference is that Pirsig posited Quality as the "beginning and end all" of > reality, whereas I have put Value into a metaphysical context (because it > cannot stand alone). Platt What is outside a "metaphysical context?" In your view as I understand it, nothing, including Essence, exists outside a metaphysical context provided by "experiencing agents," "individuated selves" or "cognizant subjects." (It's confusing, Ham, when you use different words to mean the same thing, like a shovel in one place, a spade in another, and a dirt-moving instrument in another.) Look. Quality can stand alone as the One as well as your Essence can. Both can be divided into subjects and objects. As Pirsig points out, there are many ways that undivided experience can be split. The question is, "Which way is best?" You chose the tried and true conservative subject/object split. Pirsig chose the innovative Dynamic/static value split and explained in Lila why it is the better choice. He has convinced a lot of us that his first division provides a better account of "being" than other divisions. Personally, Occam's razor goes a long way to convincing me his metaphysics is on the right track. Best regards, Platt 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/md/archives.html
