[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[X Acto]

Ham,
sorry to take so long responding, your post was somehow placed
in my spam box,
My only reply is a Quote from Kant "where there is no possibility of experience, 
there can be no prospect of knowledge either. "

I simply and humbly offer that your arguement is one of pure deduction.

What I DO contend is that awareness is a tension of quality, of deduction
verified with induction, of singularity and plurality of particular and universal
of mind and matter.
Calling my view objectivist simply cuts my arguement in two for your
convieniance of attack. 

take for instance the logical consequence of Parmenides
of which your Thesis walks almost hand in hand with.

http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/parm1.htm

Thank you for your kind consideration Ham
and as always I enjoy our discussions.





________________________________
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:23:34 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

Hi Ron --


[Ham, previously]:
> Experiential awareness is a contingency of being, but the
> psychic locus of awareness is not a being, and "oxygen" has
> nothing to do with it.  The power or capacity "to know"
> does not evolve from nature or the material world.
> It is derived from the primary dichotomy "Sensibility/Otherness"
> which actualizes proprietary "being-aware".  It is this subjective
> entity whose experience constructs the relational world of
> "appearances"--objects and events evolving in space/time.

[Ron]:
> Ah! so It is your own contention that if the physical body
> dissolves the "being-aware" still exists. With this being-aware
> an expression of the multiplicity of the immutable "one"
> . ala Parmenides.

Ah ...er, no!  Being and awareness are the (mutually dependent) contingencies of conscious  experience.  You can't have one without the other.  You're the logician: Isn't that what a "contingency" means?  If there's a more proper term, kindly enlighten me.

Previously I had defined proprietary sensibility (awareness) and otherness (beingness) as "mutually exclusive" essents, which is also true, although you found it logically unacceptable.  They are entirely different "entities' drawn together by Value to actualize being-aware.  This coupling of two disparate components (essents) is essential for the knowing self.

[Ron];
> Interesting, how you view my words as objectivist.
> However I find some contrarity in the fact that you undercut
> the very logic you use as a validity to your concepts. In fact
> if you follow your argument you invalidate your own thesis.
> Leaving one to only guess at how one comes to the validity
> of the statements you make. There seems to be no applicable
> test of worth.

Anyone who maintains that the locus of awareness--the "psychic center of knowing"--is a physical entity derived from nature is an objectivist IMO. The model for philosophical objectivism is the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre who postulated that Being (i.e.. "becoming") precedes Essence.  The logical positivists of science follow this model and attempt to explain all the attributes and properties of man, including self-awareness, as a development of biological evolution.  As a consequence, we perpetuating a worldview that rejects not only the "soul" of man and his psychic nature but the integrity of the individual self.

Pirsig has relegated value-sensibility, intellect, conceptualization, and even experience to an extracorporeal level so as to rid the world of a "conscious subject".  I ask you: What is left of existence except for objective beingness?

I await your clarification of my logic.

Thanks, Ron.

--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/