g'day Ham,
> 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: Well, pardon me for my ignorance, but to start with, I'd define sensibility as being, so how can they be a dichotomy? But if I can use the labels of subject and object, aren't we talking about the same thing? For to me, this self and other is the dualistic ontogeny of existence. "Creation" is a bit too high-falutin' for my taste. It implies a Creator and all, and I don't "go there" - at least not at such a basic level.(metaphysics as opposed to religious formulation). Ham: 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: "first cause" is a bit problematic for me also. (I'm a guy with a lot of problems!) "Cause" is such a nebulous term. Such a useful, subjective tool. But it's too subjective. Any given cause is an arbitrary choice from such a tremendous field of possible differing facts, which could also logically be called "a cause" that I'd chime in with Pirsig that for any given phenomena, an infinite number of causes (hypothetically speaking) is possible. So to turn around and assign this arbitrary and subjective way of seeing things - and use it to prove or demonstrate something so fundamental and transcendant of human experience, seems to me like hubris and logical foolishness all in one blow. And the other problem with "creation" is that it cuts off dialogue with too many people, right off. Such a variety of religious views or even strong anti-religious stances amongst people! So "creator/creation is problematic on that level, as well. I liked "the whole enchilada", but it sounds a bit frivolous, I admit. I'm not that studied in semiotics either. But I do know this about "signs" that when I explore and find from different places, similar signs pointing me in a direction, then I conclude that there is some Quality reason behind the congruence. > [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 what is doubt, Ham? What is doubt? It's the opposite of 'peace of mind', I'd say. Some instinct or intuition that keeps one asking, seeking. When is it satisfied? That's almost an entirely subjective thing. But the object of enquiry IS the subject, no? So obviously this verbal trick Descartes has used on himself, is shallow and ill-conceived. Perhaps it was appropriate for his time and his struggles, and no doubt he was brilliant in many ways, but his thinking does not seem to really satisfy any real questions. All he really knows, is the self and the other. Together always, and one evidently thinking about the other. That's the kindergarten, bedrock basis of all phenomena, experience or conceptualization of self. I think about something, therefore I and something exist. That video snip that Marsha shared was really a great tutorial on what I'd say is the heart of the MoQ - the place where subject and object meet - where the experience occurs. The idea of this event having a postive spin - that it's a GOOD thing to conceptualize the cosmos. That it's a good thing to realize the relationships of being, from highest to lowest - that being itself is dependent upon this positive spin out of the maelstrom of immediate experience. > [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? >> > > Ham: > This assumes there is nothing prior to the existential divide. John: Ok, I hadn't thought about it that way at all, but I'd definitely say there is no reason to postulate any thing prior to the existential divide. Such a way of trying to get outside of time and experience, seems futile and foolish to me. How can one know anything about that which is outside of the existential divide? If such insights do exist, they are of a different order than the simple philosophical wonderings we stick to in the game called "metaphysics". But I think this is an old issue with us, and perhaps we can dig a bit into it and get somewhere good. Again you are invoking the 'ex nihilo' fallacy. I don't believe that everything came from nothing. I wonder if this "everything" had a beginning. I mean, "beginning" is a term of human valuation - based upon our perspective of being born. And much of what we see of life follows this pattern. But "everything" is a much bigger thing than the mere lives that adorn it. It's like the same issue I had with Mr. James and his "multiverse". When you have a collection of them, then we simply have a bigger universe that contains various aspects, one in which we dwell and have our being. On the other hand, since they lie outside the realm of possible experience, why even postulate their existence? Doesn't sound pragmatic to me. Neither does asking what came before the big bang? It's a stupid question, because we're so entirely logically incapable of thinking outside the context of our cosmos. The way it seems to me, just conceptualizing the relationships of the cosmos we're IN, is an infinite game that we have no hope of finishing. But when we get that done, then we can talk about that which is outside the big enchilada. Or how big it is compared to other possible enchiladas. > Even you agree that the Value (Quality) upon which Mr. Pirsig has based the > MoQ doesn't exist independently of realization. Very true. Not the absolute subject, nor the absolute object, but meaning and self and realization and everything is found where the two meet and mingle. It's the relationship - the marriage, the dance, that is the bedrock of existence. However, it's not just a simple relation between subject and object, for life is more than a random combination of elements which happened to evolve intelligence by pure chance. Hence the need for Quality and understanding a triadic relationship of being. > 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. I think I agree. "co-dependent" has connotations of two distinct entities, mutually arising, but equal and just a duality. And there's something more to the story than subjects being the other side of objects. There's a purpose, a positive spin involved that gives extra emphasis to the "actualizer of realized Value". That's partly why the idea (which Pirsig toyed with) of a trinitarian approach is appealing. > > 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. John: Well I don't think it's necessary. I'd saying beingness is self-evident and "nothingness" is just a ghost - a postulation for those trying to think outside the box. This is the same issue, over and over. The big bootstrap issues. I'm a simple guy. Being I can point to. Nothingness I can't. Who says Beingness needs a delimiter? Why can't it just go on forever? If there are boundaries, you can't draw them. When one attempts to define the boundaries of being they recede like the speed of light from inside a speeding rocket. Ham: > 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. > > John: Ok, you seem to be using "nothingness" there in the same way I'd use "negation". There's as much difference between nothing and negation as there is between a minus and a zero. I understand that I realize red because it's "not yellow, not orange, etc". But unless you're using it that way, I can't even begin to understand how nothingness is necessary to the evolution of a pluralistic universe... or for that matter, what the hell is a pluralistic universe anyway? I only know this one universe. I don't know anything about what came before it, or how it was caused, or when it came into being, or any of those things. I've heard stories. Some were more entertaining than others. "believing in nothingness is like believing in wood. Ok, great, you believe in wood. Now what are you going to build?" I hope you got a chance to listen to that guy Ham. He was pretty good. Ham: > 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. John: "My"reality. There is something like "my" reality. And this is contrasted with the reality that we all share in common. But my reality differs from this shared or communal reality. I can dream, imagine, construe, guess or know, and such facts and patterns and choices are what make me who I am. I am my reality. And how are the boundaries and definitions of MY reality formed Ham? By what they are not. They are not the same as Your reality, or they differ in subtle ways by the communal reality that others percieve. So I disagree completely. My reality is exactly established and defined by others. Ham > You do this yourself. John: Mostly. I make the choices to think or be different, to go off in my own reality. But what happens if others observe my reality, and like it? Suppose they choose to share with me, my reality in someway? In that case, my reality has become our reality - which is redundant because "our" reality is just "reality" Ham: > 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. > John: "being an object to others" isn't something I think about, or like to think about. Hmmmm... Interesting. I don't think anyone likes being "objectified". I think to do so generates a low-quality feeling that means something more significant than we realize. So I definitely agree that it's not any enhancement. I agree that conscious awareness is proprietary to the self. Heck, as far as I can see, it's identical with what I'd call my "self" so I'll certainly allow its propietary nature. But part of my trouble understanding what you mean, is understanding what you are arguing against. I mean, there's no danger of any hive-mind social construct gobbling up such a self-contained consciousness. I see no reason to fear any chance of loss of individuality in understanding it's context and where it gets it's meaning - in relationships. Variety of individuality enhances, rather than detracts, from true individuality. > > 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. > > I, on the other hand. Find it very easy to understand people who crave social affirmation. It's an impulse I feel myself, and so easily comprehend it when expressed by others. _Our_ Reality, if you will. Or Thee Reality - the one we have to deal with. Most of human experience is related some way or another, to this social striving. And if this behavior is by conscious choice, then how does it differ from "rational, self-directed value?" My self wants affirmation, how much more self-directed can I be then, than when I seek it? 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. > > Our dialogues are like wine to me, Ham. The waiting just makes it better. But don't worry about me. I have no personal problems. Everything is perfect, and life is good. Interesting and "something to write home about". And as long as my mom needs care, I'll probably have to spend my nights in the comforts of civilization and my wife's bed, so... I for one won't be saddened by a long convalescence. Philosophically yours, 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
