On Mar 21, 2010, at 2:51 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > Hi John [Marsha quoted] -- > > > The confusion I have seen here in the last few days on the issue of > experience and the absolute, and what Pirsig meant by "direct experience", is > unprecedented. I can't speak for Pirsig, but I > need to rectify a statement you made to Marsha, apparently based on a > misconception of my epistemology. > > On 2/20 at 1:50 PM, you wrote: >> But as Ham points out, without the judgement there can be no valuation of >> the event. However he takes then the judger as absolute whereas I see it >> as none of the three legs of the tripod can be absolute - you need a subject, >> an object and a valuation all at once or there is no experience. > > I do not regard the "judger" (subject, observer) as absolute, nor do I accept > your "tripod" theory of experience. Difference (i.e., number) begins with > the division of the Prime Source to create a duality, which in numerical > terms is expressed as '2'. By the principle of Occam's razor, there is no > need to extend the differentiation formula to a trinity, a tetrad, or any > other finite paradigm. > > In my epistemology, existence is a dichotomy whose primary contingencies are > Sensibility and Otherness. Neither of these contingents is independent or > "absolute" in itself, but together they represent the existential > differentiation needed to actualize the appearance of a pluralistic universe. > In living creatures, Sensibility is individuated to create proprietary > awareness (i.e., value-sensibility) which is the "self" or subject of > experience. Otherness, the object of experience, is an experiential > construct of value that involves the space/time integration of sensibility, > the psycho-organic perception process, and (in man) the intellectual > apprehension (conceptualization) and valuation of what is perceived. > > There is no "direct experience". All experience is secondary to > value-sensibility, as is the objective world we construct. In other words, > the appearance of physical existence in time and space is a self/other > manifestation of the fundamental dichotomy. There is only one absolute that > transcends difference and encompasses all as One. It is the primary Source > which I call Essence.
Good Spring to you Ham, Maybe I should stick to 'unpatterned experience', experience without overlaying memory/concepts/patterns. How is experience different than value-sensibility? Marsha > The MoQ confusion stems from the fact that Pirsig is a "monist", not an > absolutist. And, although he did not name or posit an "absolute source", his > equivalency paradigm "Experience = Quality = Reality" leaves the inference > that one or more of these equivalents is "absolute", whereas in fact all > three relate to the finite, existential world. > > Essentially speaking, > Ham > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello John, >>> > >>> > How would you break this down to address: the experiencer, >>> > the experience and the experienced? >>> > because undoubtedly they are descriptions of the same thing, >>> > the event, the experience, no? >>> >>> They are not the same in the conventional use of English. >>> _I am seeing a tree. _'I' is the seer. The experience is seeing. >>> The tree is the seen. Experience has become a trinity. >>> What I have been saying is that only the seeing is a fact in >>> that moment. The seer, 'I' , and the seen, 'tree' are surmised >>> from the experience of seeing. They are built from patterns, no? >> >> I agree the tree, the I, and this act of seeing are built from patterns, >> yes. >> >> But I cannot 'see' how handing the crown of significance to any >> one part of the trinity of experience is better in any way. >> All three legs of the tripod depend upon the others to avoid toppling. >> >> "The seeing" is not a fact if it's a hallucination >> >> The seer is not a fact if there is no seeing. >> >> The seen is not a fact if either the seer or the seeing disappears >> from view, >> >> Therefore, they are the three, interdependent in order for >> experience to occur. >> >>> There are grammatical rules, dictionaries and social training >>> for interpreting the words we use, no? >>> >>> yes! Which influences the conceptual frameworks of meaning >>> we build. >> >> I agree completely. >> >>> > but to address the experience of the hot stove, it depends. >>> > It can be good, or it can be bad. When a child learns to listen >>> > carefully to its mother's warnings, that is an overall good. >>> > If the child is so badly injured that she dies, it's an overall bad. >>> >>> Judgements based on individual static pattern histories and dynamic >>> context. I've always wondered if RMP would say there is a difference >>> between the value/experience and the judgements made subsequent >>> to the experience. I would think there is a big difference, no? >> >> But as Ham points out, without the judgement there can be no valuation of >> the event. However he takes then the judger as absolute whereas I see it as >> none of the three legs of the tripod can be absolute - you need a subject, >> an object and a valuation all at once or there is no experience. >> >>> > Thus the value or Quality of the event is not in the immediate, >>> > experience, but in the overall context - an interpretation between the >>> > subject and object AND some third overarching principle of valuation. >>> > Interpretation is triadic in nature and thus more inherently stable > than >>> > the diadic relationship of S/O. >>> > >>> > As you know, >>> >>> I know Absolutely nothing, how about you? >>> >>> Marsha >> >> I thought there were no absolutes. :-) >> >> John > > 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 ___ 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
