John --
Hi Ham,
Pardon the slow response; it got busy around here.
So I gather.
I am somewhat perplexed by your statement that " The individual cannot 'see'
(conceive) himself except in the context of a society." Do you really
believe that? Does an individual isolated on the proverbial desert island
not conceive himself? Does he not perceive that he is a self existing in an
otherness of land, ocean, and trees? (I suggest you rethink that concept.)
'Being' itself is a mental construct of experiential sense data,
which means that without sensibility there is no Being -- neither
objective (societal) nor subjective (personal).
John:
Ok, I get you there - the fallacy of Descartes - he postulates thinking
without sensing, which is illogical and proves being then through
thinking. An absurdity!
As a metaphysical "proof". yes. But Descartes was trying to establish what
he knew beyond all uncertainty. It turned out to be that HE alone was the
subject of all that he experienced. And that conclusion paved the way for
Donald Hoffman and others to posit a "conscious reality".
But inasmuch as consciousness is vulnerable in several respects, I have
opted to regard consciousness as an organic mode of Sensibility -- an
attribute of the Absolute Source which cannot be denied. For without
sensibility EVERYTHING is in doubt. And that includes the "proofs" of
science which are all based on sensibly derived evidence.
Previously:
As you see, that leaves Sensibility as the metaphysical foundation of
Beingness. ... And there you have the essentialist paradigm of reality.
John:
I come to the conclusion that while Sensibility is the foundation for
Beingness, Beingness is also the foundation for Sensibility - they are
codependent. This was just mentioned in response to Craig - Bob Lanza's
theory of the Biocentric Universe makes the most sense to me so far,
cosmologically speaking.
Interesting that you should mention Lanza, since I've just replaced his "New
Theory of the Universe" to make room for Schroeder's "Science Reveals the
Ultimate Truth" on my archives list. But Lanza does support my ontology, as
you will readily see from this paragraph:
"Without perception, there is in effect no reality. Nothing has existence
unless you, I, or some living creature perceives it, and how it is perceived
further influences that reality. Even time itself is not exempted from
biocentrism. Our sense of the forward motion of time is really the result
of an infinite number of decisions that only seem to be a smooth continuous
path. At each moment we are at the edge of a paradox known as The Arrow,
first described 2,500 years ago by the philosopher Zeno of Elea. Starting
logically with the premise that nothing can be in two places at once, he
reasoned that an arrow is only in one place during any given instance of its
flight. But if it is in only one place, it must be at rest. The arrow must
then be at rest at every moment of its flight. Logically, motion is
impossible. But is motion impossible? Or rather, is this analogy proof
that the forward motion of time is not a feature of the external world but a
projection of something within us? Time is not an absolute reality but an
aspect of our consciousness." -- Robert Lanza: 'A New Theory of the
Universe'
Ham, previously:
What you don't understand is that realizing relational values does not
negate Essential Value; it negates the otherness of the being perceived.
>> This is how we enter it into consciousness as a thing, a person, an
object, a system, a society, or whatever.
John:
Ok, I think I get you there. It negates the *absolute* otherness.
There is a relative otherness that is useful and creative, don't you
think?
Yes, sensibility negates the being of the otherness experienced, allowing us
to conceptualize an object by its relative value to us. In the process of
experiencing we acquire the finite value of the thing, system or person so
conceptualized. In that sense, WE are the "creators" of our own reality.
John:
Well there I think Andre is right and you are wrong. Moral virtue
*is*a quest because reality *is* a moral order. The fact that morality
includes bad and indifferent, must be a good thing, because it plainly
is. The problem of evil is practically unsolvable unless we accept that
those evils instruct us in the wisdom of our struggle for the good. I
hate to get into that subject, it's one that Royce and James struggled
bitterly over and I can't imagine what to add to their arguments.
John, there is no need to struggle. Morality is what we ourselves make of
experience, emotionally and rationally. If it is useful, satisfying,
logical, and edifying, we call it "good". If it is harmful, distasteful,
destructive, or impractical, we call it "bad". Anything else is at some
intermediate place on your value scale. There's your morality in a
nutshell.
John:
Hmmm. That makes sense. Does your Absolute Essence equate to Total
Experience? If not, why? And if so, it seems you and the MoQ ought to
be reconcilable.
When you say "total experience", you are referring to the collective
experience of all (living) individuals. But experience, per se, has nothing
to do with Absolute Essence, because experience is finite and
differentiated, whereas absolute Sensibility is not.
John, I once thought the MoQ and Essentialism could be reconciled. Alas,
Pirsig's philosophy has lately been treated as a doctrine that can only be
"understood" in the words of its author. This leaves little opportunity for
"unorthodox" ideas such as mine to add the insight needed. I depend on the
intellect of persons such as yourself to make the transition, if it is at
all possible.
Thanks for your contribution, John.
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
