Hi John --
I too have been distracted by events of late. My mom broke her leg horseback riding in Wyoming (stay off the horses grandma!) and I've been staying with her and caretaking a bit while she's bedridden. Since I'm pretty much underemployed at the moment, it's a natural fit. Since my wife moved into her mobile home on her property in town, it means I get to sleep with my wife as well. Adequate wages for a non-working man!
It just goes to show that there is some goodness to be found even in tragedy ;-).
[Ham]:
...Value (what I call "affinity") can only be realized dichotomously -- 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 epistemologically wrong. I'll repeat myself again: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron.
[John]:
Well... I can't argue with you there. Unrealized Value IS an oxymoron. Which is why I lean toward explanations that involve co-dependendency and mutual arising and triadic signs. The only disagreement I can offer on your assesment, is that according to my understanding, Pirsig is using a rhetorical ploy to seduce those who have fallen into the epistemological problem you outline and in order to do so, he has to "go there" to an extent. But I believe the full body of his work and thought, taken as a whole, transcends mere epistemology. In fact, I'd say the flat-out refusal to define Quality does exactly that. ... 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.
The existential dichotomy is Sensibility/Being, and "co-dependent arising" may be another way of expressing the dualistic ontogeny of creation. Either expression presupposes a primary source or "first cause" which, in my philosophy, is Essence. Epistemology does not necessitate hierarchy, but it does necessitate a metaphysical source. I lay no claim to knowledge of "triadic signs".
[John, previously]:
But even moreso, Ham, the only thinking Descartes did was in concepts provided by his culture - is the point Pirsig made.
[Ham, previously]:
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.
[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?
This assumes there is nothing prior to the existential divide. Again you are invoking the 'ex nihilo' fallacy. Even you agree that the Value (Quality) upon which Mr. Pirsig has based the MoQ doesn't exist independently of realization. It is the sensible agent who actualizes essential Value as the object (being) of his existential knowing. That's why I don't think "co-dependent arising" adequately explains creation.
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.
Antinomy, not "antidote", John. Nothingness is the necessary delimiter of Beingness. It's the critical factor in differentiating and defining the "thousand and one things" in terms of their relations, dynamics, and quantitative properties. Without nothingness the evolution of a pluralistic universe in which we are the conscious participants is a metaphysical impossibility.
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. 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.
[John, quoting Becoming Aware]:
"Conscious beings have a private realm in which all sorts of inner events occur that are not directly observable by others." the tSee? Right there. I'm not sure, but I've got lots of questions. For is not everything that is felt and experienced by "me", communicated in some fashion -albeit ambigously and confusedly - to others? That is, my recognized being, has it's meaning and definition only to these related others. And thus any felt aspect of self-being, is mirrored somehow upon our aspects, in ways we don't intend or even fully understand. We are related in ways we can't fully imagine or intellectualize. So right off, I don't agree.
I doubt that it is possible to communicate everything you feel or experience to others. But even if it were, it isn't others who establish the "meaning and definition" of your reality. You do this yourself. Being an object to others in no way enhances the meaning of your life. Conscious awareness is proprietary to each self, not a transferable commodity. You are no more a "mirror to others" than they are to you.
I have difficulty understanding people who feel they must get the attention of others in order to "leave their mark on the world". Somehow this behavior seems to run counter to the morality of rational, self-directed value.
Sorry I took so long to get back to you, John. The above should address the substance of your last two posts. I was also sorry to learn of your personal problems, and hope your mother recovers soon.
Cheers, 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
