[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Micah --

I couldn't find the source of these points, but believe they are a
continuation of the two Peikoff principles discussed in my last post.
(Correct me if I am wrong.)

>1. Reality exists as an objective absolute -- facts are facts,
> independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

[Micah]:
> But not independent of man.  Reality exists objectively,
> but only in the presence of man.

I think we agree, but not as you've phrased it.  Man as a human being is
just another object of reality, unless you are talking about proprietary
awareness -- the consciousness of a particular subject.  So, what you're
really saying is that reality exists only as a subject/object contingency.
In other words, there is no subject without object, and vice-versa.  If this
is the meaning of your assertion, I have no problem with it.  However,
Pirsig does not frame reality in this fashion, and I don't believe he would
accept this self/other, subject/object dichotomy.

>2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material
> provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving
> reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action,
> and his basic means of survival.

[Micah]:
Reason is the tool, the senses are the mechanism.

Okay.  I don't like "mechanism" to describe primary sensibility, but I'll
accept your analogy.

Let me quote Peikoff from another website which specifically states the
"duality" proposed in Objectivism:

"The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists-and the act of
grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists
which one perceives and that one exists
possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that
which
exists.

"Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They
are the base of
all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes
something to
know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned
or
escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms,
implies their use
and acceptance.

"The third axiom at the base of knowledge-an axiom true, in Aristotle's
words, of "being
qua being"-is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of
existence: to be is to
be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle
of all action,
the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing's actions are
determined not
by chance, but by its nature, i.e., by what it is.

"It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms.
Existence is the first
axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to
adapt his
background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be
obeyed"
(Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of
nature or erase
facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to
apprehend it.
"Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."   -- 
[www.theintellectualviewpoint.com]

Do you agree that the above Peikoff statements posit two different aspects
or "types" of reality: Existence ("something that exists" -- things or
objects) and Consciousness (the "perceiver of that which exists)?   Whether
you call this a division of reality into two "modes", "levels" or
"patterns", it is clearly a necessary contingency (dichotomy) for the
knowledge of reality.  Is it your understanding that this squares with the
MoQ epistemology?   I'd appreciate your clarification of this concept.

Here's the quotation you addressed in your third ('spaghetti Monsters')
post:

>"The primacy of existence is not an independent principle.
> It is an elaboration, a further corollary, of the basic axioms.
> Existence precedes consciousness because consciousness is
> consciousness of an object.  Nor can consciousness create
> or suspend the laws governing its objects, because every entity
> is something and acts accordingly [i.e., according to its
> identity, not according to the desires of consciousness].
> Consciousness, therefore, is only a faculty of awareness.
> It is the power to grasp, to find out, to discover that which is.
> It is not a power to alter or control the nature of its objects."

[Micah]:
> Odd little contradiction in Peikoff's statement. Existence cannot
> objectively be shown to exist without the presence of man. That
> would be an assumption. Consciousness and existence cannot
> exist independently of each other. They exist simultaneously in
> the quality event. They interact on the playing field of quality.
> Neither consciousness nor existence is primary.

Again, by "presence of man" I assume you mean you mean the individual
consciousness, and that the appearance of existence -- what you and Pirsig
call the "quality event" -- is dependent on the awareness/otherness
contingency.  Any other kind of "existence" or "reality" (such as Dynamic
Quality, Beingness, or Essence) would then be an assumption.  Is that your
understanding?

[Micah]:
> Try "The Voice of Reason" and "Introduction to Objectivist
> Epistemology" by Ayn Rand.

I intend to purchase (or read) the 'Introduction to Objectivist
Epistemology' at my earliest opportunity.  Until then, I'm relying on the
statements of Peikoff and others to establish the fundamentals of the
epistemology.  As I've said before, I'm curious as to how you and Laramie
reconcile the subject/object duality of Objectivism with the quadra-level
Quality split.

Thanks for the comparison you've provided thus far.

Regards,
Ham