[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[gav]

hey y'all
--- Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> Gav and Ian --
> 
> Gav said:
> 
> > At the most correct and fundamental level
> > there is no tree and there is no me, just
> experience.
> 
> ham: Gav is right, up to the point of adding "just
> experience".  There is no
> experience without both the "me" and the "tree". 

yes there would be:  experience of no-thing, awareness
of awareness itself, the goal of transcendental
meditation etc.

> That's because we don't
> live at a fundamental level. 

yes we do. when we perceive quality dynamically;
momentarily, at least, fundamental reality is
revealing itself.

 Physical existence is
> not fundamental; we live
> in a differentiated reality where each subject and
> each object is divided
> from every other.  No other scenario makes sense.

*we do this ham*; not 'reality'. we learn to do it and
we learn it long enough and well enough that it seems
that it was always that way. 
but .... when you are baby you ain't dividing reality
up into subjects and objects. when you are a baby your
experience is undivided.
you have to learn conditional subject/object reality.
conditional reality is socially constructed. 

> By collectivizing
> "experience" and "intellect", you demean the
> individual self in order to
> attribute these human functions to Quality.

don't know what you mean by 'collectivizing'. didn't
use that word myself. and i would never demean the
individual self....quite the opposite: wish there were
a lot more of them around. most folk are still
operating the 'ego' program which is a social
perspective. individuals operate according to reason
and DQ.

  This is
> not only a distortion
> of empirical knowledge, it's flawed metaphysics.

again don't get what you are on about.

> 
> I suspect that's what Ian was reaching for when he
> said:
> 
> > The genetic determination only goes so far as to
> determine
> > "a" Redwood tree, the specific individual tree
> interacts
> > with it's environment according to its genetically
> > determined starting resources, but the outcome is
> > that of individual experience.
> 
> Actually, the outcome is the determined property of
> the tree's cells.

what outcome? what are you on about? are you a
redwood?
ham do you think we live in a deterministic universe?
are you a mechanist?

> > But you would accept that the intelligence (and
> > consciousness) of a Giant Redwood is different to
> that
> > of a human?
> 
> Gav answered:
> 
> > Consciousness (as opposed to self-consciousness
> which
> > characterises the intellectual level of pirsig's
> metaphysics)
> > has me and the tree, not the other way round.
> >
> > There is no difference at the most fundamental
> level,
> > as we are all part of an intelligent planet and
> universe
> > that manifests itself through humans, trees,
> frogs, whatever.
> 
> You see, Gav, your ontology makes Consciousness the
> primary source, not
> Quality.

two sides of the same coin ham. quality needs
awareness of it to be.

 Pirsig would not accept that view. 

yes he would. 

> "Quality", he says, "is the
> primary empirical reality of the world".  But if
> Quality is the empirical
> reality, what is its source -- its ultimate reality?
> If the world is made of Quality, what accounts for
> Nature's imperfections
> and man's deficiencies?  Why isn't everything
> inherently perfect?  Does the
> MoQ have an explanation for this state of affairs?

rebecca explained this. only man's flawed way of
thinking sees imperfections in nature.

> 
> My explanation is that man's perennial struggle with
> existence has an
> ultimate purpose --namely, to make being aware. 

all being is aware. otherwise it wouldn't be.

> Human life is a "working
> out" of values by an autonomous agent in pursuit of
> its own excellence.  We
> are each granted the freedom to choose our own
> values.

who is granting what here?

  In becoming aware of
> objective otherness, each of us brings  conditional
> value into being until
> the otherness that we are aware of is no longer an
> object but the
> unconditional value of our primary source.  In other
> words, what we are in
> Essence is what we value in life.  We are all here
> to reclaim that value.

okay! you are right: value is what we value: ie
quality.

ham have you read pirsig's books?


		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Music: Create your own personalised radio station. 
http://au.launch.yahoo.com/