[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joseph --


Following an impressively comprehensive history of philosophical thought
covering Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Aquinus, Descartes, Kant, and Pirsig,
you give magnanimous mention of Priday at the end of your dissertion.  I'm
flattered to be included in such august company, but am mystified by the
terms "payment" and "shock" by which you characterize my philosophy.

> A question: what does it mean "that you get nothing
> for nothing, and damn little for two cents?"
> Payment is tied to evolution.
>
> S/O is a description of cosmic evolution mechanical O,
> and proprietary awareness evolution S. IMO Ham
> proposes that a shock, nothingness, is necessary for
> PA evolution. Proprietary awareness with another shock,
> payment, can consciously evolve to enlightenment.
> Cosmic evolution O, proprietary awareness S shocked
> by payment evolves to conscious enlightenment, SOE.

I assume SOE is an acronym for Subject/Object Evolution.  (I don't think of
the subject/object dichotomy as an evolutionary process, but rather as a
constant function of the negational mode of Essence.)  I've searched in vain
for a clue to your "shocked by payment" analysis of my cosmology. While the
concepts "sweet spot", "static latching", "memes", and "quantum collapse"
have been bandied around here, I've never heard nothingness described as
having shock value before.

You did refer to a "shock from nothingness" in a comment about evoluton on
11/22 which I still don't understand:

> As I understand what you have previously written,
> I got the idea that a shock from nothingess got essence
> stirred up.  A law of shock.  Proprietary awareness
> does not explain messes.  A lack of an objective shock
> can explain a lack of conscious evolution.  A conscious
> shock can sir up conscious awareness and IMO good
> impressions deliver such a shock.  I am making a distinction
> between proprietary awareness in cosmic evolution and
> conscious awareness in conscious evolution--enlightenment.

Since I define Essence as absolute, nothingness can only arise as a denial
or negation of Essence; hence, the notion that nothingness exists (beyond
Essence) to get it "stirred up" makes no sense to me.

I gather that "explaining messes" is somehow important in the evolution of
consciousness.  But why would only "good" impressions deliver a shock?
Also, could you explain the distinction you're trying to make between
"proprietary awareness" and "conscious awareness?  I make no such
distinction.  Being aware equates to being conscious, which is proprietary
to the individual.  If consciousness "evolves" it evolves in relation to
being.

Incidentally, your evolutionary analysis of philosophical thought is
excellent, and offers a useful guide for those who want to categorize
fundamental theories by author or school of origin.

Thanks, Joe

-- Ham