Greetings Joe, Hi Marsha and All --
As you must be aware by now, I have problems with much of the MOQ
terminology. The author's metaphors and euphemisms don't help me
understand
Pirsig's reality any more than my own. Essentially, they shroud everything
known
about the world in a "cloud of unreality". Unreality is meaningless to me
as a
philosophy of life.
Here are two recent examples . . .
Joe writes:
Hi Ham and All,
Evolution can be described as levels in existence. How many levels?
For myself I accept seven levels in existence. Reality has a number
of faces.
Yes, I suppose evolution can be described as a series of levels. But WHY?
This is like the poet's numerical analysis of his love for a lady: "Let me
count the ways". Does parsing Love numerically make a romantic attraction
more insightful or comprehensible?
Accepting a "duality in existence" is either fish or fowl and you
don't gain much clarity in only an acceptance of "yes" and "no".
"Oh My Stars!" is so much more real!
A sensible awareness of the primacy of existence aids in the
evaluation of a description of evolution.
Joe, existence is a differentiated system -- that is, a plurality of related
things and events. Inasmuch as "two" is the beginning of numeration, I
submit that establishing a duality (i.e., the Self/Other dichotomy) as the
primary difference, and working from there is far more useful "an
evaluation
of evolution" than arbitrarily numbered levels, static patterns,
conventions,
causes and effects. This not only avoids having to explain complex and
largely unknown relationships between phenomena, it affords a
conceptual foundation for a metaphysical ontology.
Marsha wrote:
I accept that duality is the convention.
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?
A "convention" is an agreed practice in referencing objective phenomena, a
symbolic 'reification' of universal experience, as opposed to descriptive
statements or definitions. But what does it gain us intellectually to
simply call existence a "convention"? And if existence is a convention,
then you are a convention within it, and maybe Reality itself is only a
convention. Isn't that stretching nihilism to absurdity?
Marsha, I may not have all the answers, but I know that existence is not
the
primary reality and there is more to it than reified idioms. I authored
the
Philosophy of Essence to put reality into a cosmological perspective.
But if existence is only convention, as you suggrest, there's no point in
philosophizing about it until we all wake up from this dreamlike stupor
and have something Real to talk about.
Nihilism is for nincompoops. Let's get REAL, folks!
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
