[MD] Animate vs inanimate

[Ham Priday]

SA --

By "yeap" I presume you mean "yep".  Or is that the way one pronounces it in
your part of the world?  (Just kidding.)


> Ok, time for me to learn something.  Your saying
> dichotomy, not dualism, why?  Is it because dualism is
> a separation and dichotomy is not.

A dualism is a system consisting of two irreducible elements.  A dichotomy
is a division into two mutually exclusive (contradictory) elements or modes.
I think that describes my ontology more precisely.  You may recall our
earlier discussions with Reinier in which he argued that every existent has
a contradictory form.  This means that existence itself is divided and
contradictory.  Its two modes are awareness and beingness, and they
represent the actualization of Essence.  My hypothesis is that Essence
negates nothingness to actualize contrariety (difference).  Thus, although
nothingness does not exist, it is the ground of the reality we call
existence.  Insofar as Ultimate Reality (Essence or the "not-other") is
concerned, there is no existence.  Nothingness or not, it is man's reality.

> Therefore, as you stated, without self there is no other,
> and vice versa.  They depend upon each other for existence.
> Thus, must both be present even though one is not the
> other.  So, this might translate as yin and yang, but
> without the traditional approach to yin and yang that
> depicts yin having a smaller circle of yang inside of
> it, and yang having a smaller circle of yin inside of
> it, as in the drawings.  Is that correct?

If yin and yang are mutually exclusive contingencies, that is correct.

> Ok, now I see where you are coming from.  I do
> believe that some Pirsigians, or those that discuss on
> the MoQ.org, don't believe that awareness is
> objective, physical, or totally other.  Yet, I see how
> you have come to this conclusion.  Pirsigians are
> trying to merge this all, S/O, into one heap.  When
> this is done, I don't believe they are objectifying
> this 'one heap' or 'one big pile'.  When S/O are
> mushed together into this 'one big pile' (and we're
> not talking dog-crap [sorry had to add that humor]) by
> an unnumbered MoQ discussor, it is the change, it is
> answering what is that 'one big pile' now since S/O
> are no longer thought of as having this "great
> divide"?

No need to apologize.  It is dog-crap as a metaphysical thesis.  "One big
pile" is a heap of sawdust or manure.  This is not Essence.  Equating Nature
with the Absolute is Pantheism, whether you're a theist or not.  The Essence
of my philosophy is the One immutable source.  Don't look for it in the MoQ;
the closest approximation is Pirsig's multi-level DQ.  But that evolves, so
it can't be immutable.  Moreover, if you contemplate what happens to Quality
if there is no awareness of it, you'll see that it, too, is contingent on
awareness.  Therefore, Quality cannot be the primary source.

> MoQ discussors, I believe, are trying to name
> what S/O is when it overlaps?  What is S and O
> all at the same time?  Sort of, what you call
> existence as from what you mentioned above,
> "Cognizance and beingness are two completely different
> essents that together create existence.  You stated
> above, "Nothing lies between them," which you are
> inferring between S/O.  This seems like a "great
> divide", but maybe that divide is just in how your
> stating it by the use of the word, "Nothing".  Yet,
> later you state, "...together create existence."  So,
> they are together, thus, probably why you stated your
> talking about a dichotomy, not a dualism.

Their staying together is the illusion of physical reality.  And, as I said
above, the ground of this reality is nothingness -- the negation of Essence.
The proof for this is that everything in reality is differentiated by
nothingness.  Without nothingness there is no being.  Also, it's impossible
to quantify, localize, or define awareness objectively.  Science continues
to deal with it as a complex neurophysiological faculty exhibited by highly
evolved organisms.  I think you'd find the MoQers defining it in similar
terms.

> MoQ, I believe, is focusing on the 'existence' aspect of
> your discussion.  The aspect of your discussion that when
> the two different essents are together - we have this
> existence.  Maybe the MoQ is focused on this 'existence'
> aspect if I translate between the MoQ and your thesis.
> Maybe, maybe not?

The MoQers are always focused on existence.  What other choice do they have?

[Ham, previously]:
> As to your final question, anthropomorphizing your
> pet cat, hamster, or turtle doesn't trouble the world
> any more than believing in Santa Claus or the Easter
> Bunny.  (It may jar your neighbors nerves a bit, though.)

[SA]:
> Why would it "...jar your neighbors nerves..."?
> This kind of response is not healthy, is it?  To be
> disturbed, wouldn't that place an unhealthy pressure
> on ones perspective?  Therefore, the neighbors
> perspective will reveal an uncomfortable world, and in
> their eyes, I'm somehow responsible for this tension
> now reverberating in their lives.  What further
> response would this licit?  Fear, anger, high blood
> pressure?  And since I might be viewed as the cause of
> this fear and high blood pressure, unless they turn
> inward, their fear, disturbance, uncomfortability, and
> possible incompatibility will not disappear in their
> eyes until I and/or my turtle that talks - disappears.
>  A?

Sounds like you're having guilt feelings about something you've said or
done.  I'm a philosopher, not a psychiatrist, so I can't help you there.

> I really hope I finally do understand what you
> have been saying.  It would be a relief.

I hope so, too. SA.  It would be a huge relief for both of us.  But, except
for that last paragraph, you seem to have grasped the general concept of
Essentialism.  Man cannot serve two masters.  You can vacillate between one
philosophy and another until you understand the incompatibilities, or what
is irreconcilable with your beliefs.  After that, it's unproductive.  Maybe
it's time to decide which one makes more sense to you ;-)

Essentially yours,
Ham