[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Heather Perella]

     [Ham]
Indeed, the subject/object division is fundamental to
ALL intellectual
patterns!

     I thought essence is fundamental in your thesis.


     [Ham]
A pattern is a differentiation -- a unique
configuration intuitively
perceived and presented as a model for intellectual
understanding.

  ok.  not unusal.


     [Ham]
There are no patterns or differentiations implied or
actualized in the primary source, whether you call it
DQ or Essence.  

     ok.  I may differ, and I probably do, but don't
we all differ... so, anyways, my point is I like
experiencing dq, even in how I intellectualize.  Thus,
I'm talking about undifferentiation.  Yet, obviously
look at this sentence full of lines and demarcations,
yet, what am I talking about?  And how can I talk
about, know, and experience undifferentiation?  Hmmmm,
good question, eh?  What I do is just sit and be quiet
and the experience, with practice, lasts longer.  I
call this quietness.  Yet, what I've also done here is
applied dq to sq patterns.  Notice the difference Ham.
 You keep essence in some vortex place way off,
unexperienced, and not existing, yet, it is so
fundamental.  How does 'something' that has nothing at
all to do with existence be so fundamental to
existence?  This is always what I don't get about what
your saying.  I read what your saying, but your
affirmation about something that sounds so much like
'mysterious', how do you affirm mysterious and make
'mysterious-separate from existence-essence' knowable
when you even say it can't be known?


     [Ham]
Hence, all patterns -- all rationalized DIFFERENCES --
are a product of the proprietary intellect.

     Of course they are.  Proprietary intellect is
just saying you rationalized differences.  nothing
unusal.


     [Ham]
To put it bluntly: There is no "Intellectual Level". 
By insisting that the
source of reality is fundamentally broken down into
discrete "levels of
quality" the Pirsigians continue to shoot themselves
in the foot.

----------

     And yet I agree with Case that these levels are
good metaphors, thus, not concrete distinctions
("discrete").  Does that make Case and I not qualified
for MoQ?  I don't know.


thanks.

sunlight not upon the trees, hills!
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com