[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

Ron:

> Hello Ham, Although I'm not sure what the difference between a
> dichotomy and dualism is, SOM does represent both concepts traditionally.
> By the way we are all SOMists to some degree or another here in the
> west.

For the record, I think of dichotomy as a particular kind of duality, namely 
an entity whose existence is dependent on two mutually exclusive 
contingencies.  I had the option of using "dyad" in place of duality; 
however dyadic entities are "coupled" pairings whereas self/other and 
being-aware are single (monadic) entities.

>From a metaphysical perspective, existence is derived from two dissimilar 
aspects of Essence: the insentient ground of (other) and sensibility (self). 
These roughly correspond to Kant's 'phenomenon' and 'noumenon', 
respectively.  My hypothesis is that Essence negates nothingness to create 
difference, and the primary differentiation is the division of sensibility 
from otherness.  Thus, I view existence as a self/other dichotomy, the 
contingents of which are bound to each other by Value.  (Although value 
could be conceived as a third element of this paradigm, I define it as the 
essence of sensibility, since without value sensibility is reduced to 
nothingness.  On the other hand, sensibility is mostly nothingness, which 
accounts for the the space/time dimensions and multiplicity of things 
perceived in finite experience.)

I realize this is more than you wanted to know, Ron, but thought it might 
help clarify the terms as I use them in my scheme of things.

> I have to say that you captured the ideas of self fairly well, I think
> Pirsig does allude to the self as an active agent of value, in fact
> that is the best description for it. I think the concept of an
> "autonomous" self isolated in space is the static representation it
> seeks to break.
> It is the dichotomy which is the illusion of a finite perception and
> semiotics.
> "Active agent of value" describes well the statement "we are Quality"
> the self, being an active agent of quality.  Nicely put to terms Ham.
> As far as I can see, Essentialism and MoQ agree on this point.

I don't think it is possible to "break" the autonomy of the self, any more 
than it is possible to break the dichotomy of sensibility/otherness.  Both 
are responsible for the reality we call existence.  That "breakage" can only 
occur when our individuated values are reunified in Essence and we cease to 
exist..

Thanks, Ron.