Hi Joe, I am happy to partake. I am not an accepted Essentialist, so my opinion only rests on the conversations that Ham and I have had over the years, and my reading of his web site and related references. I will provide an opinion below.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mark and all, > > I have been trying to explore the basis in logic for "essence"! > > "Essence" is only perceived in a logical construct. There is no way to > discern its independent existence. [Mark] This is always a difficulty, especially with MoQ. That is, if it is an intellectual endeavor, what relation to reality does it have? The same is true with Zen and other Buddhism disciplines. For this reason, logic and reason can only take one so far in any metaphysics. Metaphysics concerns construction of a reality. As a construction, there is no way to make it independent of itself, and it simply supports itself. There is no sacred ground on which metaphysical writings are standing. There is a sacred ground on which that which is beyond words is standing. Certainly the logic is a path towards understanding, but such understanding is typically achieved at regions far below the intellectual plain long before it can be put to words. A good example is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which is an autobiography as you know. The name Phaedrus is simply used for rhetorical purposes. Pirsig "saw" something which was so damaging (he did not have a mentor to help him), that he underwent serious medical treatment to bring him back into society. I assume he consented to such treatment since consent is required, unless he became a dangerous criminal, which he did not. However, the mind is a difficult thing to erase and Pirsig spent years trying to put his experience and understanding into words. This is true for many who go through an unexpected enlightenment. Much as I do not like E. Tolle, he had the same experience. Enlightenment came to him one night when he woke up suddenly. It took him years to understand it and write about it. To follow in Pirsig's footsteps may require an unexpected enlightenment. Pirsig was able to turn a very dark situation into a spiritual awakening. There is really nothing special about such an awakening, and according to Zen we are all capable of it if we want it. It is a paradigm shift of a paradigm shift, meaning it is more than just another way of looking at something. > > Evolution is a description of levels in existence. Existence is realized in > the discernable logical baggage, evolution! Evolution is merely conceptual > baggage in essence! Creation is real! Of course, creation demands a > creator! The discipline MOQ verses the discipline SOM! [Mark] I believe that in common parlance Evolution is a process, not a thing, just like reading is not a thing. The end result is the appearance of levels, which is what I think you are saying. Such levels are not evolution any more than Chicago is the trip there. Yes, the discernible end result can be considered baggage I guess. Some suitcases can be very useful, however. Just ask Felix the Cat. Evolution can be said to be DQ in action. As we are going through it, it can appear messy and without direction. My opinion is that the current rise in autism is an example of one such evolution. Evolution makes mainly mistakes. However, once just the right kinds of mutations are all together, a new species is formed. The old species is of course very afraid that they will no longer be dominant, and this is expressed subconsciously through the way autistic children are seen. Even the term "autistic" is somewhat derogatory in our society since it means "stuck within". MoQ must use SOM to carry its message. Lila is pure SOM as is any writing of such kind. Poetry is a little farther away from SOM, music is even farther, while a bubbling stream is imparting SOMless sounds. > > Part of SOM baggage is "intention". It uses "intentional existence" in its > description of the process of knowing. My view on intention, or as I prefer to call it, Intent, is that it is the same thing as Will. There are subtle differences, however, which is why I prefer it as the term. Intentional existence from the human perspective is not possible. I also have problems with Intelligent Design as it is currently being defined (it is more of a Christian thing for most). What we term Knowing in SOM are agreed upon nerve patterns in our heads that we share with others. There can be construed many different biological "reasons" for doing this, but any reason is just an agreement. The "emotional" knowing that you have referred to is outside of the intellect, and comprises 99% of our knowing. However, SOM is a societal level function, its purpose is to create societies. We can consider this Level to be formed by evolution in the simplest terms since the current theory is that we evolved from single cells. I have discussed the problems with Evolution in many discussions over the years, so I will not go into it. I am using Evolution as I think you use it. > > Knowledge is intentional not real existence. I control my knowledge, free > will. MOQ limits that SOM baggage by describing evolution as levels in > existence. SOM waters down metaphysics with True/False reality instead of > the recognition of an Intentional/Real reality. I want what I want! A > useless metaphysics for reality and wars are fought over the acceptance of > the vision of reality. [Mark] I think the word Real is overused, and does not have any meaning anymore in this forum. Certainly we can point to different theories for a variety of existences, Emotion and Knowledge being one example. For me they are all Real. I could just as easily say that nothing is real and say the same thing. Metaphysics is expressed as SOM, that is the way it is discussed. This does not mean that such SOM is metaphysics, it is a process of analogizing through words. > > Imho Pirsig correctly denies "intentional existence" to a mind and places DQ > as an indefinable awareness of reality, the color purple. This metaphysics > then embraces logic in the definition of reality DQ/SQ evolution. War is > destructive! You may need to replace a monster! If Pirsig denies intentional existence, he would be a determinist which clearly he is not. Choices are brought about through intention. Which movie I decide to watch depends on what I want to see. My intention is to see a movie that I want to see. DQ is outside of words, otherwise it would be a form of sq. Yet we can define DQ in thousands of ways, one way being indefinable. What is DQ? I will define it as indefinable. This is simple language. Definitions equate another word or series of words for the word or concept being elucidated. Life is destructive, we are all born with a death sentence. Hope I made some sense with what I wrote above Mark > > Joe > > On 9/17/11 9:03 AM, "118" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sep 15, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Joseph Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi >> Ham and all, >> > >> Metaphysics cannot be contained in mathematical >> descriptions, physics. It >> is a different discipline. >> >> SOM logic is tied >> to a theory of knowledge which uses an intentional/real >> division in >> existence for a differentiation between knowledge and reality. >> It is hard to >> plant a tree in my brain! Joe and Maurer exist differently! > > > > Intention is >> real, one cannot say it is phony. > > > > 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
