[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Steve, Matt [Gene mentioned] --

Ham said:
I'm still not clear as to whether, if we take Matt's suggestion and "run as
far away as possible from the [SOM] distinction'," we are thereby
invalidating subjectivity.

Steve:
I think what Matt means is that as a dichotomy subjective/objective
knowledge distinctions don't work. You would need a perspective-less
prospective to decide what's what, otherwise it's just someone's
perspective.

Matt:
Though Ham still tends to misread what I'm saying ... I'm expecting that
some people will see Pirsig in that last section.  The bit they'll see is
"the actual experience of experiencing" and how that's "different (and prior
to) 'patterns of value'". ...
[snip]
What the above section does, then, is lay down the gauntlet again for why
those above notions should all be shed: they are what Ham is talking about.
Because Ham takes such notions as being a primary subject/object distinction
and, so construed, I can't see that he's all that wrong.

Ham:
If "the above section" refers to the expression "the actual experience of
experiencing", and it is this redundancy that has enabled Matt to see my
position, then praise be to redundancies!

Of course this is what I mean by self-awareness -- knowing that it is your
self who is aware.  There is nothing comparable to it in existence.  And
there is no existence without it.  We can debate the question as to whether
man is the only species possessing this knowledge, as Gene now wants to do,
from now 'til doomsday.  But the point is that man has this faculty: he is
aware of himself not as an emergent branch of Homo-erectus, not simply as a
part of a collective society, but as a proprietary "being-aware".

Ham, previously:
Now if a reality concept predictated on proprietary awareness is
incompatible with the MoQ thesis, just tell me so, and I'll desist from
trying to make my case.

Steve:
The MOQ says that experience comes first, and out of experience come
knowledge of a subject and object.  You want to say that the subject and
object had to have been there all along for the experience to have happened.
But without having any experience how would the subject know it exists? So
as you say there is a chicken and the egg issue. That's why RMP preferred to
take a different first cut of experience into static and dynamic.

Ham:
"The MOQ says"..."Pirsig says".  Play it again, Sam!  Actually, it's not the
sequence of subject and object that troubles you; it's that the two
phenomena are incongruous.  Personally, I think "we should run as far as
possible" from these finite dimensions.  If we're thinking in a time
context, I happen to agree with Pirsig that experience comes first.  But
because the mode of that experience is framed by time and space, that's how
it is perceived in consciousness.  Man invented metaphysics so he could
overcome such obstacles through logic.  Thus, if time and space are figments
of finite awareness, philosophy needn't be chained to them.  The logic is
that we can't be aware without a referent to be aware of, and there is no
referent that is not made aware.  Just as we need both hands to clap, we
need both subject and object to exist.

Steve continues:
I don't think your thesis can be compatible because the MOQ slices in such a
way that the subject you want to focus on is derivative rather than primary.

Ham:
Felled by the thin slice of Pirsig's sharp sword, eh?   Just consider this:
Essence is primary, everything else is derivative.  What I actually said was
that subjectivity (proprietary awareness) is the primary existent.  I define
all existents -- including existence itself -- as derivative of Essence.  My
use of "primary" here has nothing to do with the sequence of appearances;
it's more akin to Pirsig's levels of Quality.  Anything with nothingness in
it is derived from the Primary Source which negates all nothingness.  (Mr.
Pirsig should appreciate that; it resonates with Zen philosophy.)

Steve concludes:
If everything is recognized as being subjective then the
subjective/objective knowledge distinction is irrelevant. These are the sort
of terms that create one another like inside and outside. If everything is
subjective then there is no such thing as subjectivity, so it sounds like
for you there is no such thing.

Ham:
The distinction is that the subject is the "knower"; the object is "what" he
knows.  Both are derived from Essence, but neither defines Essence.

Forgive me, but I'll pass on your final "Prisig says" quote.  (Sorry, Steve,
but since proprietary awareness is not a pattern, social/intellectual
patterns are irrelevant to subjectivity.)

Kindest regards,
Ham