Hi Ham, I think this post is still short enough that I do not need to annotate. I have had some posts returned because they are too large, can never figure out which ones they were, so some of my conversation may be undergoing some editing at the hub.
I think you are pointing towards the observer. Something I have termed as the true subjective. Differentiation may happen when the brain sorts input into a meaningful way, but such differentiation is not the subjective. Such differentiation is then witnessed by the subjective. To find such a thing with our current technology, results in nothing measurable. I believe it is this true subjective that would be negation itself, to use your terminology. It is the process behind such differentiation that I am after. Negation is fine, but being a scientist I would say the the number one is negated by the number negative one. This is why I asked whether Absolute Essence was the mirror image of what is. Now, the possibilities of what is, is endless, which would make such essence absolute, but not in the same way you are proposing. Thanks, Mark On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, Andre -- > > > Here is the full Annotation Ham (I noticed I had omitted >> the term 'intellectual'): >> >> Annotn. 65. 'It seems close but I think it is really very far apart. In >> the >> Copenhagen Interpretation, and in all subject-object metaphysics, >> both the observed (the object) and the observer (the subject) are >> assumed to exist prior to the observation. In the MOQ, nothing exists >> prior to the observation. The observation creates the intellectual >> patterns >> called “observed” and “observer.” Think about it. How could a subject >> and object exist in a world where there are no observations?' >> >> But when you say:'... I cannot comprehend how observation can occur >> without an 'observer'.' you are absolutely correct. But where does it say >> that? What the MOQ argues is that the observer and that which is >> observed arise together. You cannot have the one without the other. >> > > That you omitted the term "intellectual" is significant to your premise. > My question is: Who's intellect? > > If we can stop playing 'Pirsig says' long enough to consider just what > "observation" means in this context, I think we must conclude that the > 'observer' is primary to the observation. I'm not talking about "before and > after", but about the entity whose experience does the observing and is > cognizant of the object experienced. Not everyone has experienced this > object, so it is surely not a universal image. Rather, it exists only in > the conscious mind of the subjective agent. Absent the subject and the > image disappears. This is true of every experience. > > There is no logical reason to dismiss subjects and objects as the > constituents of existential reality other than to satisfy a philosopher who > is determined to posit existence as a unity. Pantheists did that long > before Pirsig. That's a "let's pretend" world. If it were not for > DIFFERENCE there would be no experience and no reality to observe. Indeed, > the primary nature of physical reality is differentiated, relational > beingness. All human knowledge, all social progress, is based on that > precept. To do away with subjects and objects by euphemizing them as > patterns of quality demeans the very function of individual value > sensibility. > > Existence is the differentiated mode of essential Oneness! > Vive la Différence! > > 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 > 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
