[MD] Intuitive Reasoning?

[gav]

hey there static approximations,

ham:
> Since "no-thing" is nothing, how can we experience
> it?  The only way we
> experience nothingness in a differentiated world is
> by the absence of
> things.  As I understand TM, the idea is to avoid
> the distraction of
> "things" so as to realize Oneness, not nothing.

no-thingness is oneness as thingness is what splits up
oneness.

> 
> Gav, previously:
> > At the most correct and fundamental level there is
> > no tree and there is no me, just experience.
> 
> Ham said:
> > We don't live at a fundamental level.
> 
> Gav:
> > Yes we do. when we perceive quality dynamically;
> > momentarily, at least, fundamental reality is
> revealing itself.
> 
> This is where you and I disagree.  For me the
> fundamental level is ultimate
> reality, which is undivided.  Pirsig calls it DQ. 

no disagreement here.

> No differentiated entity
> can participate in what is undivided; therefore, we
> can only conceive it
> abstractly, or perceive it indirectly as its value
> to us.  For man to
> "experience" Oneness directly, he would have to be
> this undivided Source
> [Essence].  Clearly, he is not.

no he, is. this is a truism for most of the world's
cultures past and present.

we can only conceive of it abstractly; we can
experience it directly. if there is an undivided
source then it must contain everything otherwise there
would be multiple (divided) sources. everything's the
blanket.

yep we are all, ultimately, the same
consciousness/awareness experiencing itself in
different ways.


  In my philosophy,
> the self is a negation of
> Essence -- literally a nothingness.

are you talking of consciousness; sounds sartrean and
amenable to a radical view.

> 
> Ham, previously:
> > Physical existence is not fundamental; we live
> > in a differentiated reality where each subject and
> > each object is divided from every other.
> 
> Gav:
> > *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.
> 
> The fetus lives in what might be termed a
> solipsistic environment.  But the
> post-partum
> infant is already distinguishing faces, bodies, and
> other objects.

yes but 'he' doesn't exist as a subject yet; so
properly speaking these objects are not abstract
designations; rather recurring patterns.

  I don't
> know when socialization sets in, but I would suspect
> this would occur much
> later.  I think Pirsig has made too much of the
> societal factors in human
> development.

well you've dropped my jaw on that one ham.

> 
> Gav:
> > 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.
> 
> Since I don't operate by DQ, and I certainly don't
> get my reasoning from it,
> I suppose you consider me one of those "egoistic
> folk".

don't put yourself down mate!

  The reasoning I do
> to form conclusions is my own.  The perspective I
> have of the world is
> proprietary to me, as are all of the values that I
> sense.  I may have
> learned from "social structuring", but I am not a
> collective entity.
> Neither is experience, intellect, or value.

'you' are a group of ideas, the bulk of which you are
normally unconscious of. and yes, MOQwise you are a
collective entity made up of inorganic, biological,
social and intellectual static patterns, which are
often in conflict with each other.

> 
> Gav asks (again):
> > Ham do you think we live in a deterministic
> universe?
> > Are you a mechanist?
> 
> I am about as far from a mechanist as I am from
> motorcycles.  There is an
> order to the universe which you or I do not control.

dead right there.

>  To the finite mind,
> things arise, change, and disappear from existence. 
> Because the mode of
> experience is diminsional, we see things in
> transition as a series of events
> in time and we assume a cause and effect for every
> event.

assume many causes and many effects.

  That intellectual
> construct is determinism; however, it doesn't affect
> our freedom as
> individuals nor our uncreated Source.

our freedom is the freedom to align oneself with the
ocean of intelligence implicit in existence. of which
are own minds are but a trickle.

 
>  
> We, you and I, are the created agents of the
> uncreated Source from which all
> our values are derived.  This is the cosmogeny that
> Pirsig has failed to
> develop.

no he developed it in a book. a whole book.

  He's "overcome" duality, cause and effect,
> and individualism.  But
> he can't deny a reason or purpose for our existence,
> except to claim that it
> was coincidental or an accident of nature.

ham, this is just rubbish mate. pirsig's work was a
*response* to nihilism/relativism...a random view of
reality. does 'Quality' sound like an equivocal term
to you!?
 
>


		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Answers: Share what you know and you might make someone's day 
http://www.yahoo7.com.au/answers