[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Bo and Gavin, et al  --

[Bo to Gavin]:


> On 31 July you wrote to Krimel:
>
> gav: if you are talking of S and O (as primary; and you are),
> then we are in SOM, yep that old familiar terrain where
> objects are objects and subjects are subjects and never the
> twain shall mingle.
>
> Agree, but where are we when we are in SOM?
> That's the #¤&%¤# question. Not in another metaphysical
> universe, because the MOQ is supposed to have subsumed
> SOM. At an evil pattern that has hijacked an otherwise
> neutral intellect, or smack in the middle of the 4th. level itself?
>
> If anyone else has an opinion, please ...

If the question is "Where are we?", the answer is we are here and now.  Here 
is the locus of experiential space, and Now is the instant of reflection in 
the continuum of time.  However, "WHAT are we?" is the more significant 
question which needs to be addressed first.

Bo, I've been wanting to take this up with you for some time, and now may be 
my opportunity.  I've long held that your metaphysics is right on track but 
that it's your epistemology that fouls you up.  Let me use the first person 
'I' instead of 'we' to make my point more clearly.  (And, if you don't mind, 
I'll dismiss the "levels' issue entirely.)

I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower of my reality.  Take away 
all intellectual, conceptual, and relational elements from my consciousness, 
and I remain that which "knows".  This is so simple, basic, and self-evident 
that it is commonly acknowledged by everyone on this planet, with the single 
exception of those weird Pirsigians who insist that subjectivity is a myth.

The real Me is not intellect (mine or yours), knowledge, experience, being, 
thoughts, gray cells, neurons, or patterns of quality.  It is not even a 
physical body.  I am a self-aware.  The essence of my awareness is Value, a 
non-existent attribute of Absolute Reality.  In order to be aware, as an 
existent, I must partake of Being.  That is my organic nature.  Once 
embodied in beingness, I have the capacity to think, relate, value, 
intellectualize, conceptualize, and communicate with the objective 
world.that represents my unique value-sensibility.  This capability is 
limited by the fact that it is by nature relational (SOM), and incremental 
(in space/time).

As you may know, I define "existence" as that which is experienced as 
occurring in time and space.  Unlike individuated selfness and its perceived 
existence, ultimate reality is not an existent or a separate entity. 
Essence simply IS.  But
the 'I' cannot rise above the conditions of finitude without losing its 
beingness, since to do so would end its existence as a self-identified 
entity.

I'm sure this will evoke some questions, although addressing them to a 
"non-levelist" may not be a welcome prospect.  I am still open to 
discussion, however, and though I don't speak in levels, I'll do my best to 
respond in plain English.

Bo, I hope I've provided a proper reponse to the present question, and look 
forward to exchanging ideas with you.

Respectfully,
Ham