[MD] Being-Aware

[David M]

Marsha

An 'open' reality I would add.

DM


>
> 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.........
> .
> .
> 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/
>