[MD] Intellectual acitivity

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Alice --

(And welcome to the fray!)

> I just read "Dealing with Antagonists" on the Essentialist Forum.
> Did you write it?  I really like the site and the ideas.  The only
> problem is that the background obscures the foreground which
> makes some of the text illegible, at least on my monitor.

I'm pleased that you like the ideas expressed in the Essentialist's Forum,
and appreciate the compliments.  Your complaint about the interfering
backgound has me perplexed, since both blocks of copy are set on a white
background, except for a light blue 'balance' motif in the op-ed block.  Is
that what's obscuring the text on your screen?

This week's values column, like most but not all of my essays, has been
culled from articles by other writers which I've edited to my needs.  (I
usually provide a bi-line for the original source at the bottom of the
column.)  Many of my ideas go against the culture of the MoQ, including this
one which refutes the notion of a "moral universe".  So, beware of what you
endorse in the MD forum; you may find yourself accused of heresy by the
Pirsigians.

[Alice quotes from the current essay]:
"The Essentialist believes in the sanctity of the individual.
We respect the dignity and freedom of our fellow man and
expect the same in return."

> I like that and your post certainly maintains that standard
> in that you show great respect.

Thank you.

> I have just finished "The Illusion of Conscious Will" by
> Daniel Wegner.  In it he says that the feeling of consciousness
> is created by the mind and the brain. Of course the first
> question would be "what is the mind?".  We know what the
> brain is certainly.
>
> He says:
>
> "The experience of conscious will arises when a person infers
> an apparent causal path from thought to action. The actual causal
> paths are not present in the person's consciousness. The thought
> is caused by unconscious mental events and the action is caused
> by unconscious mental events and these unconscious mental
> events may also be linked to each other directly or through yet
> another mental or brain process. The will is experienced as a
> result of what is apparent, not what is real."

Yes, although I'm not familiar with Wegner, the tendency of materialists
(Pirsig's 'logical positivists') is to explain "mind" or "consciousness"
entirely in terms of biological (i.e., neurological) processes, just as a
computer processes data by means of electro-mechanical circuits.  The thrust
in our postmodern world is to rule out any hint of the supernatural in our
understanding of the "real world" by rejecting subjectivity -- the
"proprietary awareness" which Science can't explain.  What such theories
miss is the fact that computers are not subjectively "aware" of the
information they are processing, while individuals are.

When you do get your copy of LILA, you'll find that Pirsig does much the
same thing.  In his zeal to demonstrate Quality as the "primary empirical
reality" he places Intellect and Morality in the realm of DQ and assiduously
avoids defining individual consciousness.  He explains physical reality as
the creation of experience, but his readers are left to infer that "mind" or
self-awareness is an insignificant, accidental by-product of biological
evolution.

My position is that we cannot ignore the fundamental truth that existence is
a self/other dichotomy.  "Self" is that non-empirical identity which becomes
aware of the essential Source as differentiated otherness.  Without a
subject there could be no appearance of objects, hence no existence.  Mr.
Pirsig likes to claim that he has overcome Cartesian duality, when in fact
he has simply overlooked it.  He delights in having developed a moral
philosophy without resorting to the "religious baggage" abhored by
postmodern nihilists.  But he has left out a primary cause for his worldview
and, by this omission, has denied man a purpose in the life experience.

Glad to have you with us, Alice.  I can see that your individualistic stance
is going to be a refreshing challenge to the MoQ community.  I hope you will
find the courage to stick it out somewhat longer than other serious thinkers
in this forum who have since found more receptive minds elsewhere.

Thanks again for the kind words, and please feel free to ask any questions
about my philosophy of Essence.

Essentially yours,
Ham