Hello Ham,
> 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. > > I believe the Eastern Wisdom confirms my understanding, is that the same as "supports"? And as I've postulated before, objects are no more fundamental to self than self is fundamental to realization of objects. "CoDependent Arising" is the proper term. Each aspect of reality confirms the other aspect. You can't have a realization of self without an other and there can be no realization of otherness without a self. That's Mark's point, which I chime in on. If epistemology necessitates hierarchy, then I disagree with you and Mr. Pirsig both. > > 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. > > And here he went just as astray as assuming the things and events of a given reality. How can there be a knower if there is nothing to know? I am convinced Royce is on the right track when he takes skepticism to its ultimate reaches, that VALUE is the one bedrock of certainty upon which self and other is based. When he asks "what is provable beyond all doubt"? His argument from the certainty of the existence of error is the same conclusion Pirsig's conclusion about the existence of Quality. Also, could it not be said that the existence of a supreme deceitful being is just as much otherness as things in themselves? I think philosophers get in trouble when their skepticism at knowing reality "as it really is" leads them to postulating nothingness as an antidote. > 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. > > But surely you must see and admit that these words and symbols would never be realized by a cognizant subject, except they had first been created and transmitted by a vibrant cultural process. I don't see how you can miss this vital point, except through willful refusal. > 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. > > Self is an important construct to the subject, but my point was that it is of little import to the rest of reality. Whether or not I'm here to realize it, reality marches on after I'm gone. The whole order of the universe, in all its complexity, is derived from > value. It is the self which actualizes it through experience. > > I agree. But this "self", is not a narrow, individual entity. It's a complex, socially entwined creation of realization. But I do like your formulation of "self actualizing value through experience". That sums it up nicely. > 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. > > So maybe a little salsa will help. Can an Amoeba make acidity into betterness? It is neither the subject nor the object which implies betterness or worseness, but the relationship between the two. You have to have Cheese AND tortilla for an enchilada - Environment AND Realizer for value. > 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 > And you'll always find me willing to modify my position, Ham. If your enchilada recipe tastes better than mine, I'll bite. 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
