On Friday, June 25, 2010, at 3:39 AM, Marsha V. wrote:
Hi Ham, Does this work? Subject-object metaphysics reflects the view that reality is made of inherently existing self and objects, and an individuals thoughts, being ephemeral (ever-changing, relational, unbounded, impermanent), are not real. This view, though, is a learned set of conceptual attributes overlaid onto experience. The MoQ is not opposed to experience, but the SOM definition.
Well, Marsha, I'm opposed to "the SOM definition" too -- not because an individual's thoughts are emphemeral or impermanent, but because our concept of physical reality is acquired from common experience, not a metaphysics. What makes a metaphysics is a theory of ontology and epistemology that relates experiential 'being-aware' to the transcendent ("supra-natural") reality. To insist that we can turn this universal worldview into a "metaphysics" by arbitrarily dividing it into categories of knowedge is sheer sophistry without logic or substance.
Now I'm not sure whether "inherently existing" is intended to mean "independently arising," "self-sufficient", or "having the power to be," but I agree that none of these potentialities apply to selfness or its perceived objects. This, of course, means that all of existence is dependent on a creative source that is NOT INHERENT in nature.
Right away this contradicts others here who argue that probability, genetics, spontaneous evolution, or some 'singular state' of energy is the cause of existential reality. Except for Pirsig, of course, who suggests that Quality is not only self-subsistent but the creator of levels and patterns that represent all experience, including self-awareness, sensibility, intellect and thoughts, yet stops short of positing it as Creator or Primary Source. Had he developed his thesis based on a primary source, with a plausible epistemology to explain its differentiation, the MoQ might have ended up as a genuine metaphysics instead of a euphemistic paradigm of existence. As it is, we are left with some nice prose about moral and intellectual virtues to which we (if we're lucky or smart enough) may attach our patterned selves and rise above the mundane universe.
At least that's the way I size it up. (You may of course regard this as just another of Ham's op-ed pieces thrown from left field.)
Thanks for your clarification, though, Marsha. 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/md/archives.html
