[MD] Intention changes physical world (some questions)

[Case]

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Our experience is contained within our epidermal shell. In any instant we
see to the limit of our vision, we hear, touch and smell what is within our
reach. Such memories and models as we have are contained within our skulls.
The mortal coil is the locus and sum of our awareness.

[Ham]
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.  

[Case]
The subjective IS being. It is our attempt to assimilate otherness. I see no
distinction between my own being and my own awareness.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Not to keep beating a dead horse but DQ and SQ are aspects of Quality. They
are only distinct from one another by degree. Just as order is a stable
manifestation of disorder.

I see no need to posit any uncreated much less undivided source. 

[Ham]
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. 

[Case]
While I can see that a rock could have being without awareness. I do not
think awareness can exist in the absence of being. But in a sense a dream is
awareness without otherness. So I am hard pressed to see the logical
connections you are making.

[Ham]
Negating either Awareness or Being annihilates Existence by reducing it to
nothingness.  

[Case]
As I said I do not think that Being requires awareness. Furthermore Being
can not be annihilated only transformed. Ice to water to steam to molecules
to particles until our powers of resolution fail.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Again the contingency is one sided. Awareness depends on being but not
visa-versa. Awareness is a function of the complexity of being. As I
understood the Gardner quote you offer against Popper, his objection what
mostly grammatical. He did not think the distinction between proving a
theory true and negating it opposite was one most people could grapple with
successfully. Now you offer this up as a fundamental principle.

Still I do not see Awareness or Being as negations in any sense that
matters.

What we Value is a function of our biology and our reinforcement history.
That is, our personal Values are based on our personal experiences. They are
embedded in the structure of our internal representations of the world
around us in terms of pleasurable and painful nature of our experiences.
This dichotomy drives the being of all living things from amoeba to
chemistry professors. Our personal histories of pleasure and pain determine
our behavior.

[Ham]
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 ;-).

[Case]
I don't know whether that counts as fundamental disagreement or not but I
suspect my failure to see what the notions of uncreated Essence and
essential source have to do with anything does.