[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Ham Priday]

 [Case]:
> In several contexts I have argued that we are trapped
> inside our own skins. We construct internal models of
> reality based on the evidence provided by our sense. ...

Our own skin -- this epidermal "shell" -- may intellectually define the
boundary between 'self' and 'other', but in reality there is no boundary.
Hence, it is our intellect that is responsible for our entrapment as
'existents', and the model of reality we construct includes the physical
being by which we identify our self.

> This is processed through the organic equipment
> provided to us at birth. It is an illusion to think otherwise.
> I think this is phenomonalism or something similar.
> As far as I am concerned it is not just a philosophical
> idea but a demonstrable fact. There is a disconnect
> between our sensations and the objects sensed.
> Pirsig points to it in ZMM in his discussion of Hume
> and Kant. Hardcore mystics argue there really is nothing
> but our thoughts but I tend to think our thoughts and
>sensation refer to something other as you point out.

Ignoring Hume and Kant for the moment, we can simplify this paradigm by
defining objective 'otherness' as Being and our subjective 'sensibility' of
it as Awareness.  Thus, our existence is a dichotomy whose contingents are
Awareness and Beingness.  Now this is the dreaded S/O, of course, that all
good Pirsigians want to wish away.  But it is also the 'primary difference'
that, in Pirsig's ontology, separates SQ from DQ.  The problem is that
neither contingency can exist by itself; to account for this primary
difference there must be a primary source that transcends, yet encompasses,
the existential dichotomy.  My argument has always been that, by failing to
posit an uncreated (undivided) source, Pirsig has left his metaphysics
unfinished.

Stated as a logical syllogism: Existence = Being-Aware.  In order for Being
to exist it must be made aware to a subject.  Likewise, for Awareness to be
requires an objective other.  Negating either Awareness or Being annihilates
Existence by reducing it to nothingness.  Each is contingent upon the other,
and the dichotomy is a negation of uncreated Essence.  Our sense of Value is
a "denial" of this negation which (by the principle of double-negation)
leads us back to the essential source.  I've found no other cosmogony as
logical as this to explain existence.

Actually, I think we may be closer on fundamentals than you're presently
willing to admit.  But you can still "snap back" at me if you want to ;-).

Cheers,
Ham