[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Joseph, Laird --

Your analysis of the fundamental discussions on this form is comprehensive
and thought provoking.  Although we've had disagreements in the past, I'm
not so sure our conceptual positions were in conflict as much as was our
articulation of them.  For example, I take issue with Laird's statement
alleging "opposition" of the MoQ with SOM.

Laird:
> Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM
> is a very dangerous road. The MoQ encompasses and
> tames SOM, and to some extent relies upon the fruits
> of SOM to provide strength to its argument.  SOM
> provides an awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would
> be a catastrophic loss. An MoQ directly opposed to
> SOM would be anti-rational, anti-logical, self-destructive
> and doomed from the get-go. SOM just has a big ego and
> the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)

In my opinion, SOM is by nature immune to attack.  I think this charge is a
red herring.  We don't need a metaphysics for S/O, unless you regard
epistemology as metaphysics.  Existence is by nature a subject/object
dichotomy; it's the way we all experience the world.

Laird:
> So back toward the original topic again... does a revised
> SOL improve the big picture? SOL/SOM as just one
> (though dominant) mode of intellect, objective reality within
> intellect and not equivalent to primary reality, social and
> intellectual level empowered by use of abstraction/recursion
>... SOM can then be seen as a method of abstraction...
> Mmm, lots of possible discussion, if anyone's actually
> interested in discussing it, rather than bitching about aspects
> of the SOL already discarded.

Now here I see a glimmer of hope.  Joe claims (see below) he disagrees with
me about nothingness; yet the truth of the matter is that intellectual
"negation" IS abstraction.  It's the application of nothingness to delineate
(i.e., abstract) 'discrete particulars' from undifferentiated otherness.

Joe:
> IMO SOM and MOQ are impossible bedfellows.
> When I was studying philosophy I thought Heraclitus'
> statement that you can't step into the same river twice
> was dumb. I was enthralled by Aristotle's answer that
> we know things by abstraction. Intentional existence-
> subjective-intellectual-the basis for words knowledge
> was different from real existence-objective-sense
> knowledge-producing the image from which the mind
> abstracts the essence for words. Subject Object Metaphysics.

Aristotle was right that we know things by abstraction (negation); but this
epistemology does not support the idea of categories or levels of essence
which which he also posited, as did Kant with his TITs.

Joe:
> I read ZAMM in 1993 and am still reeling from the
> emphasis on experience. SOM is false! MOQ has a
> better answer! IMO Pirsig proposed that morality replace
> abstraction!

This I do not understand.  Abstraction is the process by which we construct
reality as concrete objects.  It has nothing to do with morality or man's
sense of value.

Joe:
> IMO esotericism emphasizes that two laws are prior
> to experience, a law of three for each manifestation, and a
> law of seven. I interpreted the law of seven as dimensions
> in existence which becomes the basis of evolutionary
> morality, code of art etc..
>
> I do not feel I am being dismissive of Pirsig when I try to
> put restrictions or explanations on experiencing evolution
> and morality. I disagree with Ham about 'nothingness'.
> I experience emptiness.

"Emptiness" presupposes a vessel or space for its content.  Pure nothingness
does not.  Thus, the mind can be empty because it has the capacity to be
filled.
Nothingness, on the other hand, is simply nothing.  It has no power of its
own but must be created.

Joe:
> I am so much more delighted with a consideration of
> a difference between Cosmic evolution as objective,
> and Conscious evolution as Subjective than SOM..
> When I asked Bo about S/O being descriptions of
> conscious and cosmic evolution, he told me to "keep
> thinking".

I can buy your "cosmic evolution as objective".  However, as an
individualist in the Randian sense, I reject the idea that the (individual)
consciousness evolves.
The human intellect expands, becomes more sophisticated, perhaps more
discerning.  But for me, this is not consciousness evolving.  Earth evolves,
biological life evolves, even culture evolves.  Consiousness remains
conscious.

At least, that's my opinion.

Thanks guys,
Ham