[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Greetings to you Ham

Fri. Aug. 8 you said:

> 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.)

Dismissing the levels is next to impossible when discussing the MOQ, 
but these are the basic things so perhaps for a little while.....  

> 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.

At this point we are at terrifying heights, yet, we must come here to 
see the Intellect/MOQ relationship (AKA SOM/MOQ) You seem to 
believe that intellect and its patterns can be detracted and the knower 
(AKA mind) will remain behind, but that won't happen because 
intellect (the level) is the subject/object (AKA mind/matter) distinction 
itself, thus the knowing subject is part and parcel of intellect's 
structure. From below a certain altitude your view looks self-evident, 
but we are not here to ruminate what's commonly acknowledged.   

> 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.  

You can repeat that the real me is not intellect, but your "intellect" is 
not the static intellectual level as I define it. The MOQ postulates that 
existence before the 4th level - before SOM - had no such things as 
thoughts, consciousness, awareness, mind, soul ...etc. they all arrived 
with that level*) (not at once but gradually). In pre-intellectual (social 
level) writings you won't find references to any the said phenomena, 
not even "essence", they are all "sound and fury".     

*) This is the "Newton example" over again (from memory) "people 
just shrug, gravity where there for Newton to discover"

> 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).

So, you have introduced Value as corresponding to Essence? If you 
now postulate that Essence is dynamic/static divided and that there 
are 4 static essence levels we have "lift-off" ...   ;-()  

> 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.  

That it is only humans who make up theories, write books and 
discusses them is elementary Dr Priday, so a Metaphysics of 
Humanity" would have worked, so would one of Consciousness or 
Essence or whatever one regards as simply being. Most obvious is it 
that everything is conveyed by language so a MOL would have been 
the ultimate one, all would work if Dynamic/Static-divided with static 
levels. But this much said I still see "Quality" as the best, the mother 
of them all.  

> 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.

Well, I have no great expectations of our arriving at some agreement, 
but by all means, you serve as the "enemy" who unites the quarrelling 
moqists.

Bo