Hi John --
I had intended to respond to your post last night, but the hour was late,
which caused me to exhibit my attention deficit and send a correction to you
instead of that other apostle. (Funny, you both look the same to me!)
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.
I'll accept "confirms" as meaning "supports" in this context. The
biological body is a self-identified object, so in that sense it's
fundamental to selfness. I agree with your "co-dependency theory", except
that the contingents (mind and body) are dissimilar essents. No "hierarchy"
is implicated in my ontogeny other than the primary dichotomy I've already
explained.
[Ham, previously]:
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.
[John]:
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?
The essent of Selfness presupposes self-awareness. Although that's a
tautological statement, its truth seems to have gotten lost in the
insistence by some that "knowing" and "things" are synonomous.
Consciousness is the preferred term, for it defines the "capacity for
knowing" as opposed to the objects consciously experienced.
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 as] Pirsig's conclusion about the existence of Quality.
But that Value (what I call "affinity") can only be realized dihotomously --
that is, by a sensible agent whose awareness is separated or estranged from
the essential source. In other words, there is no value until it is
realized. That's where you and RMP are epistemologcally wrong. I'll repeat
myself again: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron.
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.
Philosophers are always in trouble because, like Wall Street bankers,
they're speculators. But how else can we develop a thesis that purports to
explain reality? We can't get it from the laws of Science.
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.
I'm all for a "vibrant" culture, John, but the concept must come first.
Concepts originate from the introspection, intuitiion, and intellection of
individuals. The words and symbols required for transmitting concepts to
others come later, and of course they are borrowed from one's particular
culture.
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.
Thanks, John. It also sums up my concept of morality. I call it the
exercise of "rational, self-directed value." (No salsa required.)
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".
... For better or worse.
Happy salad making!
--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
