[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Laramie --

> Dr. McWatt mentioned that from the perspective of the MoQ,
> the human being is a multi-level being composed of Pirsig's
> first four levels, but he left out DQ.  DQ is more than a
> trans-human -state-, it's also a human perspective, stage or
> level.

Since I regard the human perspective as proprietary to the individual, I
have humongous problems with the multi-level concept.  Human history and
Society are products of the individual, not the other way around.  So long
as the MoQer is unable to grasp the concept of proprietary awareness as
separate and distinct from physical reality (at any level), there can be no
accommodation to Essentialism.

> Borrowing from the work of Ken Wilber, human's evolve through
> at least three general stages of development from "egocentric", to
> "world centric", to "Kosmocentric" - or pre-rational, to rational, to
> trans-rational.  The rational stage is the home of the dreaded SOM
> perspective, which some believe we want to transcend.  But we
> never transcend SOM - a trans-rational, Kosmocentric perspective
> embraces SOM in a dynamic, open-ended way.
>
> We become aware of PA starting with the rational level of
> development, and many get stuck there.  But PA expands all the
> way to this universal, cosmic perspective, where individuals
> experience their identity and not less than the force of evolution
> that created the manifest universe.  I believe Essentialism is
> ultimately a universal, Kosmocentric perspective.

What you and Wilber are describing is the psycho-intellectual development of
a human being. This is not epistemology or philosophy.  To say that "we
become aware of" proprietary awareness (PA) is a tautology.  PA is primary
to its contents; it is the pre-intellectual sensibility to value, the
"single-point perspective" that defines the continuity of selfness through
ALL stages of development -- proprioceptive or pre-rational, rational, and
trans-rational.

> Hopefully more later, but I think this has something to do with
> why many see Essentialism and the MoQ as being so opposed.
> INDIVIDUAL HUMANS evolve to, and manifest DQ, so DQ
> is also a potential component of the "compound individual".

The "potential" to become aware is a given in existence.  In fact, it
defines PA which is the individual's value-sensibility.  PA does not
"evolve" as biological and inorganic entities do; it remains the receptor
and interpretor of value throughout the life-experience.  The potential of
the individual to objectivize physical reality is derived from Essence,
which is absolute potentiality.  So, you see, I don't believe my
"non-evolutionary" philosophy can be reconciled with the MoQ thesis.

> I think your thesis would have more explanatory power if you
> incorporated Self evolution more explicitly.

I do wish you had more time to devote to this discussion, Laramie.  Perhaps
you're right that I have missed something by not stressing the psychological
aspects of self-development, and maybe you can demonstrate this to me.  I've
read Erich Fromm, Maslow, Frankl, and James, and have some familiarity with
Watson's school of behaviorism.  Somehow their theories never seemed to
resonate with my ontology in a way that I felt could support it.  But I am
always open to suggestion.

Thanks for the advice, and your high hopes for my "Kosmocentric
perspective".  I'd like to consider this further, when you have the
opportunity.

Essentially yours,
Ham