On Thursday, 8/5 at 2:47 PM, DMB replies to Ham --
Okay, I understand that your concern is with the agency of individuals.
I can also see that you believe the rejection of the subjective self
undermines the agency of individuals. Addressing your concerns
would be several steps down the road. If we ever got that far down
the road you'd see that the rejection of the subjective self has almost
nothing to do with your concerns. If you are ever going to see that,
the first thing to do is gain an understanding of what the subjective self
actually is and the reasons for its rejection by James, Pirsig, Dewey
and other radical empiricists. To that end, I offered you a passage
from a Wiki article. I can tell by your response that you did not
comprehend that passage, not even a little bit. (This is very frustrating
for me.) Here's the line that really killed me....
Ham said:
Does "nondual 'sciousness'" add anything meaningful to ontology or
metaphysics? It seems to me that any quality ending in 'cious' --
"precious",
"delicious", "malicious", "fallacious", etc. -- may be categorized as a
type
of "ciousness", if one wishes to hide the meaning of the prefix.
dmb says:
Yes, this non-dual awareness adds something meaningful to metaphysics.
In the MOQ, this non-dual awareness is called Dynamic Quality.
It is the central topic of both books. If you don't understand this part
of the MOQ, then you understand nothing about the MOQ. This non-dual
awareness is also the starting point of James's radical empiricism, which
is explicitly adopted by Pirsig. In that context, James refers to this
non-dual awareness as "pure experience". As the Wiki article put it,
Sciousness "refers to consciousness separate from consciousness of self"
and this notion "throws the question of who the knower really is wide
open".
David, it's not that I don't understand what the "radical empiricist" is
trying to do, it's that I don't accept the premise. Throwing "the question
of who the knower is wide open" is not my idea of making metaphysics more
comprehensible or meaningful. Why do you suppose "this notion contradicts
the fundamental assumption of every philosophical school"? You admit that
the point of radical empiricism is precisely "to contradict that fundamental
assumption." But what justifies the dismissal of sound philosophical,
psychological, and sociological research, except the need to postulate a
monistic reality?
There simply IS no "consciousness separate from the conciousness of self,"
and I challenge you to provide evidence to the contrary. To insist on
positing consciousness as a collective entity or pattern apart from the
subject is begging the question of "non-dual awareness" with no epistemology
to support it.
The dualism they are rejecting with this non-dual awareness is
called subject-object metaphysics or, as we refer to it around here,
simply SOM. Rejecting SOM doesn't make people disappear.
It doesn't mean we're mere pawns controlled by the physical universe.
The MOQ says that Man is the measure of all things, is a participant
in the creation of all things. You're unlikely to ever find a philosophy
that is more centered on human agency than these guys are offering.
It is human centered and freedom is the highest good but in a way
that's more profound than even Jefferson could have imagined,
but it's not about individualism or egotism either. I mean, your
concerns that the MOQ would undermine such ideals is unfounded
and only reveals a lack of understanding on your part.
"Rejecting SOM" is just a cop-out for rejecting subjectivity. Being aware
of objective phenomena is not a "metaphysics"; it's common, universal
experience.
And where does the MOQ say that "man is the measure of all things"? (That
was Protagoras's maxim from the 4th century BC, and I am rebuffed by
Pirsigians every time I quote it.) Frankly, your assertion that James and
Pirsig offer a philosophy that is "centered on human agency" strikes me as
disingenuous. The agency of MOQ is Quality and its levels, and the human
individual is just a set of patterns under its control. Needless to say,
neither Quality nor a pattern has conscious awareness--even if it is equated
with Reality in a philosopher's thesis. I've seen few, if any, references
to individual freedom in either of Pirsig's books, and the capacity of free
choice and value creation are conspicuous by their absence.
I'm sorry if my personal worldview clashes with that of Mr. Pirsig.
Understand that I have put a lot of time and thought into developing a
philosophy of Essence, which also acknowledges Value as the ground of
experience. Like other philosophies, it has its weaknesses and
shortcomings, the order of "universal forms" being one of them. On the
whole, however, Essentialism answers the fundamental questions in a
meaningful way, without rejecting empirical knowledge or man's quest for
spirituality.
Your efforts to "help" me are appreciated, David. But, as you can see, I
follow my own convictions, which makes it extremely difficult to adapt to
someone else's notion of metaphysical reality.
Thanks for your interest, and sincere best wishes,
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
