Hey, John --
I guess I'll chime in, Ham, since I'm certainly
one of "those" strange people. ...
When Descartes was incommunicado, he was still
thinking about something. "I think (about something)
therefore I know that I (and something) AM." The
wisdom of the East puts it differently, and better -
it is delusion to believe that the self arises and confirms
the ten thousand things: enlightenment realizes that
the ten thousand things arise and confirm the self.
If you really believe that pure contemplation exclusive of external thoughts
is not possible, why do you cite Eastern mysticism to support your argument?
By using the word "confirm" with regard to "the ten thousand things," you
reveal your SOMist position--that objects exist independently of experience.
In my epistemology, the self doesn't "confirm ten thousand things"; it
CREATES them. It's my understanding that this is also Mr. Pirsig's
epistemology.
But even moreso, Ham, the only thinking Descartes did was
in concepts provided by his culture - is the point Pirsig made.
I disagree. The only "concept" Descartes was concerned with was: What is
provable beyond all doubt?" Things and events could be mere illusions,
tricks played on him by a deceitful god. All that he knew for a certainty
was that he himself was the Knower of these things.
I also don't buy into the notion that concepts are provided by our culture.
What we acquire from cultural influences are morés, traditions, methods,
formulas, and a knowledge of human history. Concepts, like values, are
proprietary to the self. Even mathematical or logical premises are only
words and symbols until conceptually realized by the cognizant subject.
Of what import is the distinction between reality
and existence? The only distinction I can think of is
the self - a brief construct of little import to reality,
and a great deal to existence! What's your frame
of reference here?
"A brief construct of little import"? Yet, what entity but the knowing self
has direct experience of this world and comprehends its values, relations,
and systemic order? In fact, the conscious self is the only existent that
is NOT a "construct"! Were it not for the observing subject, the reality we
call existence would never be imagined, let alone realized. I suggest that
you rethink your description of the self, John. I'll wager that even a
hard-core objectivist would say that it gives short shrift to the self.
But surely you realize that the entity which draws our focus,
or focuses us, is the all important topic of the MoQ.
In other words, it's not just an arbitrary momentary whim
which determines our values -
I never said that it was. The whole order of the universe, in all its
complexity, is derived from value. It is the self which actualizes it
through experience.
I disagree. We have lots of reasons to interpret "reality"
in lots of ways. That's what we do here, create reasonings
and reasons for dividing experience in particular ways,
testing those ways, weighing and examining - all in the light
of a sort of faith that _fundamentally_, some ways of
thinking are better than others. That this betterness is
what is demonstrably fundamental to all experience or
reality or whatever you want to use to reflect upon
"the whole enchilada".
Your enchilada is not to my taste, John. Neither "betterness" nor
"worseness" is implicit in the experiential world but that the observer
makes it so. It is we "of little import" who actualize our reality as
patterns of being and nothingness in accordance with our unique value
sensibilities.
Clearly our respective ontologies are not on the same page. But I'm still
waiting for Mark to come out of his "rut" and voice his own challenge. I
anticipate that he'll side with you.
Thanks for expressing your views, John. You' find me always willing to
defend my position.
Essentially speaking,
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
