[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Ham Priday]

Scott (Ian mentioned) --

Scott said:
> ... physicalism is (from my point of view, of course)
> fundamentally wrong in starting with the assumption of
> the ubiquity of a physical substrate, while the MOQ is
> not fundamentally wrong in starting with the assumption
> of the ubiquity of value (though, again as I see it, it gets
> subsequently wrong pretty quickly by not recognizing
> the mutual implication of value, consciousness, and
> semiosis). And you would say that my metaphysics is
> fundamentally wrong in starting with the ubiquity of semiosis.

What is "the ubiquity of semiosis"?  If the MoQ is not wrong by positing the
ubiquity of value, then do you see value as the semiotic essence?   I doubt
very much that Mr. Pirsig or anyone else here, with the possible exception
of Matt, understands Value or Quality as semiotic.  You also said:

> The eternal is real, but you're right that we utterly
> lack the ability to think in eternal terms.
> What I see this as implying is that there is something
> seriously wrong with us, for which the correct word is
> "insane".

I think that's what we're all about here.  Metaphysics, as I understand it,
is an attempt to overcome this "insanity" by explaining existence as an
ontological system that has its source in ultimate reality.  If we dismiss
reality by defining it as semiotic, it becomes an intellectual anagram -- a
fantasy of human thought.  That is what I think is insane: it's a total
rejection of the metaphysical approach.  I submit that the first postulate
that should be assumed by any philosopher is that reality is REAL.  And,
while semiosis is a new concept for me, I can't envision it as anything but
"unreal".  I think this is also Ian's problem with your ontology.

I know you don't subscribe to my philosophy of Essence.  But I'm willing to
shelve Essence for purposes of this discussion, if only to try to make some
headway with you.

Let's assume that what is "seriously wrong with us" is not that we're
insane, but that our existence is not indigenous to the fundamental reality
we are trying to understand.  Instead of blowing reality away, let's punch
some holes in the cognizant self.  Would you accept the view that conscious
awareness is full of holes?  Our knowledge of reality is limited to the
present and what we remember of the past; our perspective is limited to the
proximate space around us; and our awareness itself is only the content of
what we experience.

These holes or "gaps" in conscious awareness can be defined as Nothingness.
We are all permeated by nothingness; indeed, it is what Ian would call the
"non-physicality" of subjective awareness.  In short, man's existence
consists of nothingness and substance, the former constituting the self, and
the latter the physical universe.  To make something "be", the intellect
delineates (separates) the thing from the rest of its substantive object by
wrapping it in nothingness.  This isolates the thing observed, giving it
form and dimensions.  In other words, nothingness is the operand in creating
a world of differentiated beings.  And that nothingness is our own
proprietary awareness.

If you've followed me so far, you'll see that we've reached a fork in the
road to Reality.  That is, we can say that whatever exists is derived from
nothingness, or that whatever exists is derived from something else.  If you
conclude that nothingness is the source, you are a nihilist in the truest
sense.  If you hold out for another source, you open the door to
supernaturalism, one form of which is Pirsig's Quality thesis (although he
would deny it).  Frankly, I don't know where semiotics fits into this
scheme.  I can't see semiotics as a fundamental source, like nothingness or
Quality or Essence.  But I'd be interested in seeing where you come down on
this.

Just what is your fundamental reality, Scott?

Regards,
Ham