[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

On 8/22/09 3:18 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at abcglobal.net> wrote:


> Hi Ham and all,
>
> Thank You! Ham, for not using the word "essence"!
> Your conclusion: "Ultimate Reality is the absolute and
> self-sufficient 'ground' of all created being" seems to me
> to be a bit pretentious.  Imho this is a "postulation"
> rather than an "observation".  I cannot observe a sentient
> that experiences an "Ultimate reality" of all galactic entities.

Joe, you will note that this "sentient" inserted the phrase "In Ham's 
ontology" before
explaining it.  You must know that an ontology is a conceptualized theory. 
Nowhere have I asserted that ultimate reality is experienced.

In fact, a major point of correcting Bodvar's description of Essentialism in 
this comparison with the MoQ was to show that ONLY objects and their 
attributes are experienced.  (I did not mention Essence because I wanted to 
avoid what Bo had called the "lingo" of my ontology.)

Regards,
Ham



> 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