[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Andre --

> Ham: you are like a (re-inforced) brick SOM wall (your
> SOM cultural immune system is thicker than the Chinese one!!),
> a typical example of one who simply does not want to be
> persuaded or even willing to taste. ...

I understand your frustration with my worldview, Andre, but YOU musr 
understand that "cultural immunity" is not what it's about.  We are all part 
of the culture of mankind, and we are all influenced by it.  I am not an 
isolationist, nor do I advocate abandoning the values and mores of our 
culture.  On the contrary, I believe one of the first symptoms of a 
declining nation is defaulting to alien cultures (e.g., language, 
backgrounds, and traditions) under the banner of multiculturalism.  The 
discrepancy I raise with the MoQ has to do with epistemology, not culture. 
Specifically, it fails to recognize the individual as the focal center of 
experiential reality.  No matter how we choose to label or parse the 
constituents of existence, our awareness of it is relative to the individual 
self.  It's impossible to philosophize about reality while ignoring 
subjectivity.

> [B]ut we are all seekers of quality here and are in the process
> of attempting to put it in a way where we agree on principles
> and interpretations with a very healthy regard for 'alternative'
> views, presentation of 'new' insights and shaking our own
> static patterns...no matter at what 'level' they are.

Agreed.  And this is exactly why I continue to argue here for a 
clarification of the individual as the cognizant locus of existence.  I 
submit that this is what defines the "subjectivity" of our being in the 
world.  Awareness stands apart from objective phenomena in existential 
reality.  What you call SOM is 'being-aware' to me.  It isn't ultimate 
reality, but it is the mode of reality that we all know and depend upon as 
living creatures.  Parceling up this knowledge into discrete levels and 
patterns may be a convenient way to "index the contents" of awareness, but 
it won't help us understand the role of the individual versus the Whole of 
Reality, which is the aim of philosophy and metaphysics

> My hunch is (and anyone unconvinced of another's conviction
> starts picking on details) that you are stuck in SOM 'level'
> thinking vs MoQ 'level' thinking. Read 'Lila' p334:'...the empirical
> experience is not an experience of 'objects'. It is an experience
> of *value patterns* *produced by a number of sources, not just
> inorganic patterns*. This simply means that you have to go
> outside the levels to comprehend and work/play/interact!!! with them.
> The same applies to the other 'levels'. That is why I have always
> expressed a difficulty with the designation 'levels'. Yes, they are
> discrete but they intertwine/complement contradict/support and
> undermine each other.

I have no quarrel with the fact that, existentially speaking, man and the 
world about him are made up of inorganic and organic elements working 
together, much as a collection of individuals living in a given culture 
(i.e., morality system) make up a society.  Intellect, however, is not a 
collective process and doesn't qualify as a form or level of physical 
existence.

> Value=Morality(!!!) and 'relational perceptions of the human being
> have nothing to do with this. You are placing the human being outside
> of this 'universal principle' but we, human beings, ARE the living,
> static/dynamic patterns of Value and Morality (both high and low)
> within a universal "principle'.
> Why are we here, now?  Because we are evolution's most free
> (i.e. BETTER) expression and realisation of inorganic and organic
> values. It seems to me that the only evolutionary step thus far taken
> is that step that keeps us where we are at the moment, and it appears
> to be a restrictive one ...SOM dominated intellectual PoV's.

Evolution is only the process of the nature as experienced in time.  It is 
not a "cause" or source of the world, so it cannot answer the question "Why 
are we here?".  Evolution does not give us Freedom, and "betterness" is a 
value sensed by the subject of existence.  Things and situations are 
recognized as better or worse by the mind of man.  As the free agent of 
value, it is man, rather than nature, that moves his culture and its 
environment to betterness.

> Ham, your 'Essential' has nothing essential about it. It just is... !
> Why Quality? Because it is better, more elegant and more
> harmonious. Remember that it is not the first choice, many
> mutations have gone before, many have failed, many survived
> (and that is what we see around us, and feel and taste and
> whatever you like... because they are better...) and do not think
> for one minute that his process has stopped since 'our' arrival.
> It is a continuing process. We just happend to become part of
> this merry-go-round..whether we like it, or make sense of it, or not.

As a rational person, I do not accept "just happened" explanations any more 
than science or true philosophers do.  Man is not here by accident or freak 
mutations. (What a strange way to define moralistic betterness!)  All 
process is relational, and there is no existence without difference, which 
is why neither evolution nor its experienced "quality" qualifies as ultimate 
Reality.

> I do think, Ham, I cannot persuade you...at least I have tried.
> But will...no more.

As I surmised, we have reached that impasse beyond which further argument is 
futile.

Thanks for trying to persuade me, and good luck with your universal levels.

Bes regards,
Ham