[MD] What is SOM?

[Ham Priday]

Joe --


> When I combine the undefined elements:
>
> I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower
> from my consciousness and I remain that which "knows".
> This is so simple, basic, and self-evident that subjectivity.
>
> The defined elements:
>
> Of my reality take away all intellectual, conceptual, and
> relational elements with the single exception of those weird
> Pirsigians who insist it is a myth.

I take it your cryptic exercise is designed to impress me with the fact that 
some things can't be defined.  Well, so what?  I can't define love or joy or 
beauty or value, either.  But I can sense them and respond to them.  Not 
only do they have profound meaning to me, they wouldn't exist if there were 
no subject to.
experience them.  Can you imagine a universe without awareness?  What 
possible meaning or purpose would it serve?

Think about it, Joe.  What would be the "measure of quality" or value of 
such a system?  How could a sophisticated, self-sustained order of being 
even be discerned, let alone valued, in the absence of awareness?  A world 
without awareness is a world without value.

Now, I know Pirsig & Co. would have us believe that Quality evolves toward 
"betterness" on its own, as if possessed by its own morality and indigenous 
value appreciation.  That of course would mean DQ is not a monism at all, 
but a power or force with divided functionality.  It wouldn't exactly pass 
muster as the "absolute metaphysical source", would it?

You and I are the conscious observers who bring value into beingness as the 
physical universe.  This is the cosmic role we play in the life experience. 
Nothing has more value for a human being than self-awareness  It's the last 
thing any of us wants to lose.  Whether 'selfness' is definable or not, each 
and every individual is a subjective being-aware in this creative process.

Sorry, Joe.  You can call me an SOMist, a theist--even an unenlightened 
solipsist.
But you won't convince me that reality exists for you, me, or anyone who is 
not aware of it.  As Stanford's astrophysicist Andrei Linde said in a recent 
interview, "I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores 
consciousness.  It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, 
completely inaccessible to anybody.  It's necessary for somebody to LOOK at 
it.  In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

I find it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss philosophy with anyone 
who will not acknowledge self-awareness as the cognizant locus of 
experiential reality.

Thanks for the rubic paradox.

Regards,
Ham


> On 8/9/08 2:20 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Greetings, Joe --
>>
>>
>>> I want to apply a metaphysics of undefined, defined
>>> to your statement:
>>>
>>> I am my conscious awareness, the subjective Knower (undefined)
>>> of my reality (defined). Take away all intellectual, conceptual, and
>>> relational elements (defined) from my consciousness, (undefined)
>>> and I remain that which "knows" (undefined). This is so simple,
>>> basic, and self-evident (undefined) with the single exception of
>>> those weird Pirsigians who insist (defined) that subjectivity
>>> (undefined) is a myth (defined).
>>
>> And what do we gain by this defined/undefined rationale?  Perhaps it
>> demonstrates that the components of awareness reduce to a duality (SOM).
>>
>> Under what you cite as 'undefined' are the Knower (a subject by 
>> definition),
>> Consciousness, Knowing, and Subjectivity (selfness).  These are of course
>> the non-existent "mental" elements or processes, as opposed to Reality 
>> which
>> is defined by objective experience.  I'm not so sure Insistence and Myth
>> fall into the 'defined' category, however.  The former is an expression 
>> of
>> intent or will on the part of a subject, while Myth is defined only in 
>> the
>> sense that it identifies the subject's invalidated belief system.
>>
>> A comment of yours to Marsha on 8/6 may shed some light on on your motive
>> here:
>>
>> [Joe]:
>>> Your emphasis on the term "emptiness" echoes how I view
>>> the undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level.
>>> In a seven level template for evolution "emptiness of emptiness"
>>> also echoes the evolution of Subject only, the 6th higher
>>> emotional level.
>>
>> In a previous post you also said:
>>> The relationship between what is undefined S and what is
>>> defined O becomes intellectual, SOL.
>>
>> I can't make any sense of the levels inferences, but you do refer to "the
>> undefined consciousness/self-awareness of the Social level".  I don't 
>> know
>> that it's possible to define self-awareness as a Social phenomenon, but
>> would argue that it most certainly defines the individual.  What you seem 
>> to
>> be saying is that since the subjective self can be defined only in terms 
>> of
>> its "relational elements" (patterns?), conscious awareness is a 
>> non-entity
>> (unless the intellect can define it).  In other words, there IS NO 
>> SUBJECT,
>> as Pirsig maintains.
>>
>> Joe, I hope I have this wrong, and that you are not echoing the 
>> nihilistic
>> position that what is objectively indefinable (i.e., Self, Value, 
>> Essence,
>> etc.) cannot be.  Please tell me you had some other purpose or strategy 
>> in
>> mind.
>>
>> Thanks, Joseph.
>>
>> --Ham
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/