Greetings Ham, Life is just one big begging-the-question: You, Me, You, Me...
On Jul 29, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Ham Priday wrote: > > Hey, Marsha -- > >> No, I have not adopted a theory. More like I'm looking for a way >> to make sense and explain of my experience. On investigation I can >> find no autonomous self. I experience only a broken stream of pattern >> pieces. My 'sense of self' seems but a pattern too, not real. But what >> of this awareness. This is a little more tricky. - The book is difficult, >> and I will need to give it a second reading to make better sense of it >> and how it might fit within the MoQ. > > What is it that you find "unreal" or "tricky" about your sense of self? And > why is the concept of subjective awareness so difficult for you to accept? It seems to be that if you are a construct, than you are an illusion. The concept of 'subject awareness' is not difficult to accept; It is all too easy to accept: time, space and ME. > You respond personally to this "stream of pattern pieces," do you not? You > are involved emotionally and intellectually with your experiences and act in > accordance with the values they represent to you. How you judge those values > and respond to them is your individual choice. No one else shares your > proprietary experience or controls the way you respond. Do you not see this > as constituting your conscious life as an autonomous agent of an objective > reality? This separate self constitutes my conventional life. > Your reality relates to you as its sole observer and intrepreter. The fact > that experience is a series of events made aware to you over time does not > reduce your life to "pattern pieces". Indeed, I'd be surprised if the word > "pattern" would even have occurred to you were it not for your reading of > Pirsig. Before I read ZMM or LILA, I read 'The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, and I had been read Krishnamurti, Patanjali, and others. The introduction of 'static patterns of value' is just the BEST analogy. You may experience pattern as ugly, common or beautiful. > You gain nothing philosophically or spiritually by refusing to acknowledge > the duality of existence. I accept that duality is the convention. > I realize that 'subject/object reality' is anathema to Buddhist monks and > mystical philosophers. But the world we live in is a world of appearances. > And there is no way an appearance can exist and be made sensible without a > conscious self to experience it. Pirsig's mistake, in my opinion, was to > posit Quality (Value) as the primary reality. What is primary to existence is > sensible Awareness. It is the conscious Self which brings Value into being. It is static value that brings into existence the Self. I am not rejecting this convention; it is what it is. If you were satisfied with conventional reality, why did you put together your Essence philosophy and write your book? Are the questions over for you? Do you have all the answers? > Ponder on that, Marsha. It may yet lead you out of your quandary. There is no quandary. > Valuistically speaking, > Ham Valuistically speaking, Marsha ___ 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
