[MD] Being-Aware

[Ham Priday]

Jean -- 

> Please, do better to disguise your anger. I'm sensitive.
>
> If you do not value my thoughts, please tell me at once
> and I will quit wasting your and all of your friends' time.
>
> Furthermore, it's not possible that I would think that you
> would be explaining Pirsig's MoQ, I don't even know
> what Pirsig's MoQ *is*.

It takes a lot to make me angry, and I don't make a habit of responding to 
those who do.  I will admit to some doubt about your sincerity, however. 
The "I'm sensitive" appeal sounds a bit incredulous to me, for example.  And 
getting the same message from two highly contrived aliases, then denying one 
of them, doesn't exactly win my confidence.  (Clearly, you haven't been 
totally up front with me.)

> I have only read ZMM, as I explained, and nothing else.
> As an aside, does it really matter who *owns* the Quality
> idea?

Yes, I think it does.  If an author publishes a theory in his own name, 
credit for the idea should properly go to him.

> I am not interested in the history of ideas, only the ideas
> themselves. Only, it helps sometimes to know how different
> people have thought of these things throughout time.
>
> You said you were after: "a fundamental definition for
> existence. Existence has variously been conceived in this
> forum as material, illusionary, phenomenal, and qualitative."
>
> My question had to do with your idea of being-aware, not
> MoQ.  If you can define existence, you can describe it.
> To describe things, you can use adjectives such as "material"
> or "illusionary." That's what adjectives are for, describing things.
> So, based on your definition (being-aware), how would you
> describe existence?  That's all I was asking. Are you saying
> that any such description would necessarily be an explanation
> of the MoQ?  Don't misinterpret *me.*

No description of existence is necessary, inasmuch as we all experience it. 
The words "material" and "illusionary" are not just adjectives; they connote 
a "degree of reality" to what is experienced.  So, yes, these words do color 
the fundamental definition by imparting either credibility or 
"unreliability" to objective reality.  That's why I prefer the term 
"phenomenalistic" to describe existence.  Phenomenalism, like idealism and 
materialism, is understood by scientific objectivists as well as 
philosophers, and it supports my concept of an awareness/beingness duality. 
I also refer to differentiated existence as a "valuistic" construct, and 
adjectival form of Value which you won't find in the dictionary.

[snip]
> Trying to rephrase things isn't asking for trouble, as I explained,
> and you seem to agree with my basic idea. I'm trying to find
> that common ground, that third-grader language so we can at
> least *think* we understand each other. Obviously, if you don't
> agree when I try repeating back to you what I think you've said,
> something has gone wrong.  But how can I know I understand
> if I don't try? If you just want me to nod my head and smile and
> say "yeah, I get it," you've got another thing coming. I may do
> that in the classroom, but I will not patronize anyone by doing it
> here. Its a waste of my time.

 [Ham, attempting to clarify awareness]:
> "Everything that exists must be made aware."
>
> The meaning of my statement is that everything that exists
> is aware to the subject*.

[Jean]:
> I'm afraid that it doesn't.  The problem, I think, is the phrase
> "aware to." I know what being "aware of" means, but
> "aware to" is, to me, sort of like saying, "aware from."  . . .
>
> I'll try again with my rephrasing:
> "Everything that exists is considered aware to the subject."
>
> Which then translates to:
> "The subject that is aware considers everything that exists
> to be aware."
>
> Which, you can image, causes problems. At this point,
> it is mainly an issue of syntax, of grammar. Which is almost
> more frustrating than a conflict of beliefs. Can you try to
> rephrase your sentence starting with "the subject"?

Jean, the subject IS awareness, specifically value-sensibility.  Experience 
converts value to being, making Being the "content" of awareness.  (That's 
the Being-Aware dichotomy I'm proposing.)  In order for something to exist, 
it must be made aware (to the subject).  Existence is perceived as Being. 
Te subject doesn't "consider everything that exists to be aware".  Rather, 
his awareness brings Value into existence as Being.  (There's more to this 
epistemology, but this is all you need at this juncture.)

> However, if it helps, what I am also driving at is actually a
> series of deeper questions concerning reality, which build
> upon your ontology but are not fundamental to it. As such,
> you could, if you so choose, completely ignore them. I find,
> however, that for my own personal enlightenment, they are
> worth asking.
> I am not going to create new discussions for them because
> I am more interested in other things. Its simply that you have
> brought these questions back to surface, and I cannot be
> sure your concept has any use to me unless it can say
> *something* regarding these questions. Of course, whether
> your definition of existence does or does not help answer
> these is only something I can judge.
>
> These questions include:
> is existence dependent upon cognition
> (for example, via being-aware)?

Yes.

> What would exist in the "eyes" of a rock (which is not aware)?

I have no idea.  Minerals?
What exists in the eyes of a potato?  Organic cells?

> Would the Universe exist if not for cognizant beings, or
> would the word "exist" be wrong to describe such a possibility?

Inasmuch as existence is what we intellectualize as the universe, it must 
also be made aware.  Understand, however, that we our discussion has thus 
far been limited to existence.  For the Essentialist, ultimate reality is 
not existence.

> If all you can do is rephrase that one sentence* to my satisfaction,
> I will consider this a success, but I am highly insulted and very
> close to disappearing.  Not like you'd care.

Try to get over your hurt ego, Jean.  We're all adults here, and I've said 
nothing that could have offended you, let alone make you "disappear".   That 
would be an interesting trick, though.  (I wonder if it will work.)

Cheers,
Ham