[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --

> Ham,
> sorry to take so long responding, your post was somehow
> placed in my spam box.

Yes, I have been trashed quite a bit lately ;-}.

> 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 argument 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 argument in two
> for your convieniance of attack.
>
> Take for instance the logical consequence of Parmenides
> which your Thesis walks almost hand in hand with.

Parmenides denied the "reality of change" on the ground that what exists 
always exists, and  change is a logical impossibility.  My thesis has this 
much in common with Parmenides:  If his reality refers to ultimate Reality, 
change is impossible because absolute Essence has no "other" in space or 
time.  To change from one thing or state to an OTHER implies otherness, 
which violates the definition of "absolute" as well as Cusa's first 
principle: "the coincidence of contrariety."

Parmenides also denied that anything can come from being or nothingness.  To 
quote from your referenced article:

"Parmenides seems to assume that a thing can come into existence either (a) 
from being or (b) from not-being. He would rule out (a) on the grounds that 
a thing can't come into being from itself; he would rule out (b) on the 
grounds that nothing comes from nothing."

The author then notes the exception dismissed by Parmenides, Pirsig and the 
existentialists (objectivists) but which is fundamental to Essentialism. ...

"But Parmenides has overlooked the possibility that a thing can come into 
existence from something else. This would be neither from itself, nor from 
nothing; since it would be from a different being, it would, in a way, be 
both from a being and from a not-being."

The "something else" is not a "thing" at all, it is the immutable source of 
all change and difference.
The beginning of change is difference.  In logic and mathematics, the first 
differentiation is a division of the prime (number) into two.  In 
metaphysics, nothingness is the agent of division which results in the 
existential dichotomy Sensibility/Otherness.  Experiential reality 
(being-aware) is actualized from this dichotomy.

An argument from pure deduction, you say?  Probably.  But isn't this true of 
most metaphysical theory, including Pirsig's Quality?   We cannot know the 
ineffable other than by intuitive reasoning, which is what philosophers do.

Thanks for getting back to me, Ron, and enjoy the holiday season.

Essentially yours
Ham

________________________________
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