[MD] Being-Aware

[MarshaV]

Ham,

The MOQ starts with experience.  Experience is reality.

Marsha



At 12:45 PM 9/24/2008, you wrote:

>To all MoQers --
>
>
>We each have our own view of reality, and you folks diligently 
>strive to fit it to Pirsig's hierarchy of levels and 
>patterns.  Unfortunately, in making this accommodation, we all get 
>bogged down in sophisticated terms and paradigms that not only 
>attempt to do Pirsig "one better" but are incomprehensible to the 
>average participant.  (I plead guilty to the same mistake.)
>
>Noting the confusion, a few of us have moved toward presenting our 
>ideas with the fundamentals in mind.  Recently I've been trying to 
>to this with Bo, Marsha, Ron, Joe. and some others here, with some 
>productive results. The worst that can happen with this approach is 
>that someone rejects the fundamental principle out of hand, which 
>aborts the discussion.  When this happens, I simply accept the 
>inevitable and move on to the next person who shows some willingness 
>to explore an alternative view.
>
>So, at the risk of being simplistic, I'd like to wind back the 
>"levels scheme" of reality and start afresh in the simplest and most 
>universal language.  I suggest that you all consider existence as 
>"Being-Aware".  You may disagree with this concept; but before you 
>do, let me try to show why it is as close to fundamental truth as 
>any philosophical postulate.
>
>First, being and becoming are defined by most dictionaries as "the 
>state or quality of having or coming into existence."  That makes it 
>fundamental by definition.  We can't have existence without being, 
>and we can't exist without becoming.  Does anyone here deny this fact?
>
>Secondly, at least from the individual perspective, it is 
>inconceivable that you can know that anything exists without having 
>an awareness of it. "Awareness" is defined as the realization, 
>perception, or apprehension of what we know.  Since we know that 
>being exists only because we are aware of it, each cognizant 
>individual is fundamentally a being-aware.   Or, to put it another 
>way, being in existence takes the form of a sensible (cognizant, 
>knowing) agent or entity who becomes aware of being, the locus of 
>which is his/her self and its knowledge of a diversity of other beings.
>
>Finally, whether your personal philosophy accepts the "metaphysical 
>reality" of this dualism or not, existence consists of at least one 
>cognizant subject (self) aware of an objective otherness 
>(being).  However we may hypothesize Reality, and whatever we  think 
>may have occurred before (or after) awareness, fundamentally 
>Existence = Being-Aware.
>
>Now, because it establishes a fundamental precept, I would 
>appreciate your comments and/or objections to this analysis.  It 
>seems to me that if we can accept Being-Aware as an irrefutable 
>principle of existence, we will have a universal platform on which 
>to construct a metaphysical theory of ultimate reality, whether it 
>is essentialism, existentialism, nihilism, idealism, or qualityism.
>
>Respectfully yours,
>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/

.
.

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.