[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Ham Priday]

Hi David -- 

> You say: the experienced world begins and ends with the individual.
>
> Well you could say that, us Pirsig folk say reality=experience
> so that implies something similar about the individual.
> But is the individual a ground of experience or something
> that is discovered in experience. In terms of self-awareness
> I would argue the latter. Is not the m/other experienced prior
> to any self-awareness we may develop?-just for starters.

I would say that the individual is the "subject" of experience, since
"ground" implies root cause or essence, and the individual is neither of
these.  However, I realize that you "Pirsig folk" don't like subject/object
dualism but would rather talk in the language of levels and patterns.  In
deference to this concept, I've been using "dichotomy" in my posts.
Webster's Collegiate defines "dualism" as "a theory that considers reality
to consist of two irreducible elements or modes," but it cites "duality" and
"dichotomy" as synonyms.

Inasmuch as all difference starts with a separation of unity, duality may be
considered the first order of differentiation.  That anyone can question the
empirical fact that existential reality is differentiated is astonishing to
me.  Almost as astonishing, and metaphysically unsound, is the dismissal of
subjective awareness as the primary "interpreter" of reality.  I find it
frustrating to talk philosophy with people who refuse to acknowledge the
free interaction of the individual subject with its objects, but speak of
intellect, thoughts and feelings as a collective realm of the biosphere
which human beings "latch onto" at the appropriate stage of their evolution.

Now, as to your second question, I believe that self-awareness emerges
gradually from a series of pre-natal sensations that have been integrated
into conscious memory.  These somatic sensations -- pain, irritation,
discomfort, etc.-- interrupt the homeostatic tranquility of the fetus and
are eventually linked together as the content (sensibilia) of its awareness
continuum.   But I also believe that proprietary sensibility is present as a
"potentiality" even before such experience is registered in consciousness.
This leads to my theory of nothingness, which is beyond the scope of your
question.  However, it does reveal my basic departure from Pirsig's MoQ, in
that all experience, all knowledge, all value is proprietary to the
individual.

In valuistic terms, reality is unique for each of us.  It is this principle
which makes the individual autonomous and gives meaning to human existence.
As I see it, man is the value detector and choicemaker of existence.  He
creates his own reality from the self/other dichotomy, but neither he nor
biological evolution creates the dichotomy responsible for his awareness.
The rejection of proprietary awareness and the absence of a transcendant
source IMO leave major holes in Pirsig's philosophy.

Nice to hear from you again, David.  I hope I've answered your "starter"
questions.

Best regards,
Ham