[MD] Instant Karma

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Mel (Andre mentioned) --


Andre quoted ZMM with an assertion:
> 'At the moment of pure Quality, subject and object are identical'.
> (ZMM p 284).)...only later are static PoV's deduced. To be aware
> of this event and this subsequent process one must step into a
> MoQ 'paradigm'.

I responded:
> All experience is differentiated and relational.  Even self-awareness,
> once realized by the child, differentiates his identity from others.

You comment:
> Even in this, your qualification clause: "once realized by the child,"
> leaves it clear that you are aware of an undifferentiated attribute
> of at least some experience.

Mel, an attribute doesn't stand alone.  It is followed by the preposition 
"of" to designate nn object or person from which it is extrapolated. 
Therefore, an attribute is by definition differentiated.  Awareness is not 
an attribute but the "knowing" self.  Self-awareness identifies the 
particular self who is aware, so it too is differentiated "selfness"'. 
Conscious awareness refers to a relational world of objects, so its contents 
are also differentiated.  Any way you analyze it, experiential existence is 
differentiated

> As long as you are aware of what Pirsig is aiming toward, and it
> seems clear you grasp it in your own vital action in the world as you
> perceive the world unfolding, then the specific choice of names Quality
> vs Sensibility are mere place holders in our attempts to exercise
> cognition upon this shared insight as we explore it and what follows...
>
> That you are in love with the SOM structure and wish to
> maintain the vitality of it is of course your choice, but it is
> not necessary.  There is an attraction to it, an aesthetic,
> that is undeniable, and even comforting.

I am no more "in love with" SOM than you are, but it's undeniably the 
structure of our existence, so I have little patience with those who would 
"explain it away".  However, as you know, I believe reality is more than 
existence, or the value of its constituents.  Existential values are but a 
glimpse of ultimate reality experienced by a finite agent.  The MoQ never 
gets beyond "otherness".  Its Quality doesn't transcend the experiential 
world becauser its author failed to posit an essential source.  Evidently, 
he believed that "pure Quality" is non-relational and does not have to be 
created or realized.  I think this is an unfortunate shortcoming for a 
philosopher with such a wide following.

Sorry, Mel, but those are my views.

Regards,
Ham