[MD] the subjective

[Ham Priday]

[Krimel]:

> So I have been reduced to just a label?  Has it occurred to you
> that people have actually taken the time to "consider your view"
> and find it devoid of meaning. You reify of "nothingness" and
> turn it into a creative agent. You glorify "free will" which in your
> "philosophy" is nothing more than ignorance in the face of
> predestination.
>
> Once again I ask the world only "Essentialist" to address the issue:
>
> A thing can have being without awareness. My computer has being
> but, AI notwithstanding, it has no awareness. I assume you also
> have a computer but I have no awareness of it. There was water
> on Mars that none of us as aware of until recently, yet it did not
> just suddenly appear and throw itself in front of the Mars rover.
> In short a thing can have being without awareness either
> self awareness or the awareness of some other.
>
> Awareness on the other hand requires being. It presupposes being.
> A being must exist prior to its becoming aware of other things that exist.

Krimel, I referred to you as an existentialist because your worldview is 
that Existence is primary to Essence.  All that you've stated above reflects 
the common notion that reality = existence = beingness, the emergence of 
awareness being only a late phase of biological evolution incorporating 
advanced neuorological development.  We all recognize that this is the 
objectivist theory of Science and is consistent with experiential evidence. 
It would be pointless for me to "address this issue", since you are 
obviously not open to alternative views.  The aim of philosophy and 
metaphysics is to get beyond the limitations of experience and look at 
reality as more than a relational system made up of objects that arbitrarily 
come and go in space/time.  If we can get an intellectual handle on ultimate 
reality, we may also gain insight as to the purpose and meaning of existence 
and, especially, the role of the value-sensible creature in the cosmic 
scheme.

Robert Pirsig was inspired by Zen Buddhism and the Neoplatonists to present 
a perspective that is in part idealistic (i.e., Quality as a universal 
principle) but ontologically existentialist (Being as patterns of quality). 
>From his earliest writings, it is clear that his major objective was to 
develop a reality paradigm that would make Cartesian duality obsolete.  Such 
a perspective didn't have to address metaphysical issues or define ultimate 
reality or a primary source.  Quality alone would be the unifying concept, 
replacing subjects and objects with a monistic hierarchy that achieved the 
author's objective.  Or so he thought, until the analytical logicians, 
positivists, and skeptics began to question some of the ideas implied in his 
two quasi-fictional books, and some notable omissions.

Although I was ignorant of Pirsig's theory -- it wasn't taught in my 1950 
philosophy class -- I was also working on a metaphysical concept with a 
valuistic component.  I discovered Pirsig in 2001 while researching Value 
for my online thesis, and wrote to him with some relevant questions.  (He 
responded with a cursory note advising me of his retirement status and 
suggesting that I join this forum.)  While I enjoyed ZMM and Lila as novels, 
I was disappointed by the author's failure to expand on the metaphysical 
foundation he had outlined in the SODV paper.  You see, Essentialism starts 
with awareness and its source, whereas the MoQ is based on evolution as a
a function of Quality, and most of it is allegory rather than theory.  What 
we have in common begins and ends with the idea that the sense of Quality 
(Value) is primary to the experience of physical reality.

That there is a need for further understanding has become evident during my 
six years on the MD.  I have learned much from those willing and open-minded 
enough to consider a different perspective, and I have strived to keep my 
comments within the context of Pirsig's philosophy unless specifically asked 
about Essentialism.  I am also open to criticism, but get no joy from 
exchanging insults as a creative pastime.  I'm primarily interested in 
constructive dialogue as opposed to tearing apart someone else's ideas.  My 
ontology is fully documented on line and in paperback.  So, if you are 
persuaded that Existence precedes Essence, that a computer exists in your 
world if you're not aware of it, or that the appearance of water on Mars was 
not a phenomenon that coincided with the rover findings, getting dragged 
into an argument to the contrary would be as unpleasant for me as it would 
be unproductive for you.
Enjoy your sojourn in Boston, but don't try to talk philosophy with those 
shrinks at the APA convention.  They'll only tell you what you already know.

Regards,
Ham