[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Joseph Maurer]

On 8/22/09 11:06 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>
Pirsig postulates that the universal notion of reality is a Subject/Object
paradigm, which is to say, a mind relating to matter.  (He has called this
universal notion "SOM", despite the fact that it is neither metaphysics nor
a metaphysical theory, but simply a common precept drawn from experience.)
Ham maintains that the S/O division is what we all call Existence.  (This is
an observation, not a "postulation".)   The Subject of Existence is
Awareness (also referred to as "value-sensibility" or "agent").  The Object
of Existence is Being (also referred to as experiential "phenomena",
"finitude", "things and events" and "otherness", together with their
properties and attributes).  In Ham's ontology Subject and Object are
mutually dependent contingencies which, within the experiential framework of
space/time, constitute man's "worldview" of reality.  Reality itself,
however, is not divided into subjects and objects, awareness and beingness,
or things and events occurring in time and space. Ultimate Reality is the
absolute and self-sufficient "ground" of all created being.
<snip>

Hi Ham and all, 

Thank You! Ham, for not using the word ³essence²!  Your conclusion:
³Ultimate Reality is the absolute and self-sufficient *ground* of all
created being.² seems to me to be a bit pretentious.  Imho this is a
³postulation² rather than an ³observation².  I cannot observe a sentient
that experiences an ³Ultimate reality² of all galactic entities.

Joe 

> 
> Dear old Bo --
> 
> 
> 
>> MOQ postulates that the ruling Western World View is
>> the Subject/Object - aka Mind/Matter (abbreviated SOM).
>> You postulate that the S/O split (or in your lingo between
>> the Sensible Agent and its Awareness) is no "world view"
>> because it is reality itself - existence's deepest ground.
>> Is that right?  It must be possible to smoke you out.
> 
> I know that in your own mind this analysis makes sense, or at least enough
> sense to "smoke me out".  I also know that you would have dispensed with me
> long ago if this topic was not important to you.  But you must realize that
> I have to deal with your lingo, too, and what you've written does not
> accurately represent my view.  You and I are coming at Reality from two
> different points of view.  What we need is a common language to communicate
> our respective views in a way that is comprehensible to both of us.  Since I
> can only communicate in English, I suggest that we each try to articulate
> our ontology in the simplest terms, using analogies and examples when
> necessary for understanding.
> 
> Let me start by revising your statement above to express what I actually
> believe (minus the "special lingo"):
> 
> Pirsig postulates that the universal notion of reality is a Subject/Object
> paradigm, which is to say, a mind relating to matter.  (He has called this
> universal notion "SOM", despite the fact that it is neither metaphysics nor
> a metaphysical theory, but simply a common precept drawn from experience.)
> Ham maintains that the S/O division is what we all call Existence.  (This is
> an observation, not a "postulation".)   The Subject of Existence is
> Awareness (also referred to as "value-sensibility" or "agent").  The Object
> of Existence is Being (also referred to as experiential "phenomena",
> "finitude", "things and events" and "otherness", together with their
> properties and attributes).  In Ham's ontology Subject and Object are
> mutually dependent contingencies which, within the experiential framework of
> space/time, constitute man's "worldview" of reality.  Reality itself,
> however, is not divided into subjects and objects, awareness and beingness,
> or things and events occurring in time and space.  Ultimate Reality is the
> absolute and self-sufficient "ground" of all created being.
> 
> Now, if you will be kind enough to provide a similar paradigm for your SOL,
> we should have the basis for a comprehensible and possibly even productive
> dialogue.  If you can do this without resorting to Pirsigian terms, so much
> the better.  ("Static", "dynamic", "pre-intellectual" and "patterns", as the
> author uses them, only confuses me anyway.)
> 
> Thanks, Bo.  Understanding your "worldview" is important to me, also.
> 
> Essentially 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/