[MD] Consciousness a la Ham

[Ham Priday]

Bo --

> I find your position identical to Pirsig's "Hot Stove" example.
> Ultimate reality (Quality) encompasses sensible awareness
> (the subject) experiential beingness (the world the subject
> perceives). If the last about "the value that separates all otherness"
> corresponds to the static levels it would have been perfect.
> Pirsig said that Quality is "between" the subject and the object
> but "encompasses" is just as good.

My use of "encompasses" should not be taken to mean "equates to".  In other 
words, subject and object are not the nature of Essence, but are derived 
from Essence.  Likewise, Value (which you omitted from my summary) is a 
perceived aspect of Essence.  I see Value as the "counterforce" to negation, 
in that the latter divides (or separates) in existence what the former binds 
(or unites) in Essence   I don't recognize levels, and "static" and 
"dynamic" are meaningless to me, except for the fact that differentiated 
existence is perceived as a dynamic system.

> At least I agree with you in the debate with DMB who - now - has
> found Essence to be the Serpent in (our) Eden. To deny that Quality is
> Pirsig's ultimate is plain silly, but whether one says "Quality=Reality",
> "Essence=Reality" is insignificant, the important thing is that the S/O is
> not the fundamental divide of reality, the Dynamic/Static divide is.

Quality (Value) is Pirsig's "ultimate", not mine.  As I said above, Value is 
derived from Essence as sensibility which is primary to human awareness. 
There is no "ultimate" in differentiated existence.  This is where Pirsig 
misses the boat.  Ultimate reality is undivided.  You cannot logically 
incorporate ultimate reality in a differentiated, relational system.  You 
cannot equate Quality or Value with Essence.

> "Essence of reality" or simply Reality says the same. We have a
> saying about "putting butter on pork" and that applies don't you think?

I stand corrected.  The phrase "essence of reality" should have been typed 
in lower case.  What I meant to do was lead up to the concept of Essence as 
the antithesis of nothingness.
Also, when I speak of value-sensibility as the "essence" (lower case) of 
man, I do not mean that value-sensibility equates to Essence (initial cap).

[Ham, previously]:
> Pirsig's critical mistake was his failure to take metaphysics
> seriously and acknowledge that source.  In the last analysis his
> quality hierarchy is little more than an allegorical representation of
> experiential existence.

[Bo]:
> Here I disagree, the mere Quality=Reality or Essence=Reality is
> barren. Only a metaphysical divide of reality can account for existence,
> the S/O one created paradoxes while the Dynamic/Static doesn't,
> thanks to the level hierarchy.

Quality=Reality is barren because the perception of quality presupposes a 
cognizant subject.
The inference is that in the absence of man, there is no reality. 
Essence=Reality is valid because it makes no such presumption.   The 
proposition is not contingent on physical existence or subjective awareness

[Ham, previouisly]:
> Value, Matter, Difference, Evolution, Intellect, and Consciousness are
> all relational aspects of being-aware.  The closest approximation of a
> "relational definition" for Essence is Cusa's 'not-other' principle.

[Bo]:
> Why not include "Essence"?  I think this is Ham meeting Ham in the
> proverbial door.

My reason for excluding Essence from a list of relational derivatives should 
be self-evident.
Pirsig's reason for excluding a primary source in what is purported to be a 
metaphysical thesis is not so clear.  My guess is that he wanted to avoid 
the connotation of "theism" or "supernaturalism" which would make his 
ontology less acceptable to a postmodern audience.

Thanks for the opportunity, Bo.

Essentiallty yours,
Ham