[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[markhsmit]

On Dec 6, 2009, at 10:38:38 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
On 12/6/09 6:31 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


> DQ/SQ Imho this is the great contribution Pirsig has made with
> his emphasis on Quality. Undefined Quality DQ is not the same
> as a non-existent quality, or quantified, localized, or objectively
> observed entity. Substitute Love for Consciousness (sensibility).
> Will you acknowledge the absence of "quantified, localized, or
> objectively observed" does not modify love (consciousness)
> sufficiently to eliminate it?

I suspect you may be confused by my terminology. "Reality" in my vernacular 
connotes what REALLY (ultimately) IS. "Existence" is that which only 
appears to be, and 'existents' are the finite beings we experience.

Certainly I'm not proposing to "eliminate" either love or consciousness. 
Nor do I deny that conscious feelings of love, compassion, admiration, and 
awe influence our behavior as human beings. I just don't categorize Value 
(Quality) or the emotional responses it engenders as 'existents'.

Don't you see that by positing 'essents' as primary to existents I am 
actually raising human Sensibility above the existential (illusionary) 
level?

Regards,
Ham
Hi Ham,

I find it difficult to follow your contention that your perception of Reality raises it above the 
illusionary.  What you describe is an idea.  It is a system by which you understand
Reality.  I have no problem with your position that our awareness creates our awareness.
I also understand that without such sensibility we could not perceive.  Where I conflict
with you is that such perception is only assumed by man.  Through the principle of
negation of essence, all existent things come into being.  Where there was nothing
there is now something.  

The interaction of our beings with what we perceive as other creates 
our self concept.  This is analogous to a bubble only being in existence because
of the water.  The only thing that makes our negation important, is our personal sense
of it.  I can only see through my eyes, not yours.  The mechanics or process by which
this happens is not as important as the personal soul (so to speak).  A computer
negates which didn't exist by creating a picture on the screen.  However, this
is the sum total of it.   Our awareness if this existence is that mechanical part.
The values, emotions, desires, opinions are also part of the mechanics, that can be 
explained by simple biology.  Our personal involvement with this mechanics
is the only true negation.  Now that personal "I" does not exist.  In itself it is
nothingness.  Yes, when the body dies, our appreciation of reality through the
senses disappears, but the underlying "I" does not.  This is analogous to
a bubble bursting at the surface of the water.  The identity of the air
disappears, but the air does not.

The "I" is essence, it does not need to be a negate.  Perhaps we are saying the
same thing, I lose track.

Mark