Evening, Joe --
Hi Ham and all,
For me the only way to explain "the emergence of proprietary
awareness" is value, not indefinable individuality in metaphysics.
Inorganic, organic one-celled, organic multiple-celled beings
are observed that do not have "proprietary awareness". In a
sentient being emotions are experienced and indefinable in
possessing "proprietary awareness".
Funny, I tend to think of individuation as definable because we define all
experience. By differentiating Value we actualize experience. So if we
can't define existence we're not experiencing it. What is "indefinable" is
that which we DON'T experience, such as absolute reality or the uncreated
source of existence.
"Essence" does not define a distinction between individualities with the
manifest capabilities of sentient behavior without proposing an "Essence"
for each individual. It proposes a body/soul division in the existence of
a
sentient individual.
Joe, if you read my on-line thesis you'll see that I posit the individuated
self as a "negate", by which I mean that proprietary awareness is an
"exclusion" of Essence. What gives us the power of a free agent is our
sensibility to Value. Although Value and Sensibility are both derivatives
of Essence, a negated self is required to separate them into the localized
subject (negate) and objectivized reality (essent). What makes this
possible is the negational potential of Essence whereby nothingness divides
the proprietary self from its otherness. I refer to this phenomenon as the
"Self/Other dichotomy", and it is the genesis of all difference.
Individuality and Essence are confused in being indefinable
in a theory proposing a difference in existence SOM. The
difference in levels in existence is proposed by MOQ evolution.
In order to make Evolution his fundamental reality (DQ), Pirsig had to avoid
positing an Absolute (immutable) Source which is not subject to the
conditions of time and space. This restricts his metaphysics to a paradigm
of material existence In truth, time is experiential, not essential or
fundamental; the precept of "events in process" is the mode of human
experience.
A one-level fits all "existence" is inadequate. A two level
: metaphysics of an "existence" S/O can only be imaginary.
Where's the beef?
"Levels" is Pirsig's arbitrary paradigm for existence, not mine. Absolute
Reality is One in Essence. Difference begins with two, and all subsequent
differentiation -- including the individuation of value-sensibility --
derives from the Self/Other dichotomy.
The observation of levels in evolution like that accepted in
the MOQ demands that the more rational explanation for
evolution, levels in existence, needs an emotional metaphysical
approval as physics with a language of defined mathematics
are inadequate.
If I've untangled the meaning of this unwieldly sentence correctly, you're
saying that because Pirsig's metaphysics of levels is "emotional" in nature,
mathematics and logical reasoning are inadequate to deal with it. This
would be true, except that I don't accept your assertion that "levels in
existence" is a "more rational explanation for evolution" than, say, the
experience of things and events in process.
Two different kinds of existence as subjective and objective
in an observation for insentient, sentient1, and sentient2 behavior,
ignores problems in individuality and differing qualities.
You've totally lost me here. What is "sentient 1 and sentient 2 behavior"?
If it's any help, subject and object (SO) are not "two different kinds of
existence" but the co-dependent contingencies of existence. And Essence is
not an existent because it transcends all difference.
You cannot accept DQ/SQ, and remain attached to only
an intentional and real existence proposed in the metaphysical
definition SO. MOQ embodies the more varied concepts of
an evolution in existence, needed for a logic of evolution
beyond S/O.
Value-sensibility encompasses as many existential variations as can be
experienced. We don't need DQ for an expansion of sensibility or for "more
varied concepts of evolution." For that matter, we don't even need a "logic
of evolution," whatever that is supposed to mean. If you're capable of
conceptualizing "beyond SO" (existence), you can forget about evolution,
since the uncreated Source doesn't evolve.
Thanks for your thoughts, Joe. I don't mean to be dismissive of your
analysis; it's just that you are intractably tied to an evolutionary thesis
that is incompatible with my philosophy of Essence.
Cheers and best wishes,
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
