[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


Thanks for considering my essentialist paradigm.  I don't know if Andre or 
Steve regard it as relevant enough to consider, but we'll see.

> Sounds to me like Being is the same as Objective and
> Awareness is the same as Subjective. So far, no change in
> S/O duality. But, you have admitted as such above.
> You are "holding out" for that "paradigm." I wish others
> with a similar cast of mind would be as forthcoming.
>
> Appears to me just another way of describing S/O dualism.

I acknowlege the duality because we all deal with it every day as 
"beings-aware".  But.I am holding out for its resolution as the unity of 
Essence, which contemporary philosophers shun like a plague on mankind.  You 
know, Pirsig didn't really resolve subject/object duality.  In his SODV 
presentation paper he labeled Intellectual & Social levels "subjective 
static patterns" and Organic & Inorganic levels "objective static patterns." 
If you consider that awareness, thought, and intellection are "subjective" 
and material existence (beingness) is its "object", the SOM paradigm is the 
same as mine.  Except, of course, that Pirsig refused to define the 
individual as the locus of subjectivity.  He wanted us to think of human 
beings as biological patterns of a socio-intellectual level.  (Individuality 
doesn't suit the collectivist mindset.)

> According to the MOQ what we "know" in the sense we can identify
> what we know as "being" or "it exists" is a step back from primary reality
> which is direct experience (awareness) prior to any concepts of being,
> existence, awareness, division, differentiation or what have you. Thoughts
> are after thoughts following our perennial visceral Quality perception.

Platt, I might as well be talking to myself, as I have repeatedy stressed 
that there can be no awareness or experience without a sensible subject. 
Experience --  no matter how "direct" it is -- does not qualify as the 
primary reality.  Quality (Value) is relative to the subject of awareness, 
so it can't be primary.  The cognitive subject has to be created (caused or 
formed) by some non-relative power or source.  Even your esteemed author 
doesn't seem to comprehend this logic.

> If you like S/O and hold out for it as you say, your paradigm is just 
> fine.
> The MOQ, however, suggests the S/O paradigm leaves out two important
> explanations: 1) the nature of morality, and 2) how we got here other than
> by dumb luck. So while your Essence philosophy is an attractive still 
> life,
> I see the MOQ as a enchanting ballet. I enjoy both, but prefer the ballet.

The nature of morality is man's value-sensibility.  Man invented a "moral 
system" so that he could establish a humanistic culture and survive as a 
social entity.  I know you've been persuaded that we get morality from the 
universe, but if you think it through it simply doesn't follow.  If we lived 
in a moral universe, there would be no need for value preferences or 
morality systems, and life would be meaningless.

"How we got here" is explained in my creation hypothesis, along with "why we 
are here" and "what will become of us".  Where does Mr. Pirsig even consider 
these questions?  Do you really think "Some things are better than others" 
is a moral imperative we can live by?

> As always, I could be wrong.

Yes, Platt, I'm afraid you are wrong on this matter.  But I do appreciate 
your response.

Sincere regards,
Ham