[MD] Is it serious?

[MarshaV]

Greetings Ham,

I have always had trouble following your unique metaphysical language.


At 03:03 PM 5/20/2009, you wrote:

>Dear Marsha, [Ron quoted] --
>
>
>>I am most curious, though, what Ham thinks is the real self.
>>Some of his statements I could agree with, but not as an
>>independent self.  -   But maybe Ham is not responding to
>>my posts?  Maybe I've been too acrimonious. I suppose sugar and 
>>spice, and everything nice isn't one of my
>>active patterns.
>
>No, Marsha.  I sense no acrimony in your responses, just the same 
>old party rhetoric repeated at the bottom of all your posts.  But 
>occasionally you do come up with an intuitive idea that blows us all 
>away.  (More on that later.)
>
>Pirsigians like to talk philosophy by splitting hairs.  They're not 
>content to accept existence for what it is -- a self/other duality, 
>so they've replaced duality with a tetrology of levels. They're not 
>happy with experiential reality as a continous process, so they cut 
>it up into "static patterns" said to "respond to Dynamic 
>Quality".  They're not comfortable with a unified Self, so they 
>divide it into a "small self" said to be "the objective observer" 
>and a "large self" said to be "the universe".  And they call the 
>result of all this parsing metaphysics.

What do you mean by "accept existence for what it is"?  Human beings 
once perceived the world to be flat, were they correct?  I think your 
complaints in the above paragraph are humorous considering the 
esoteric and confusing language you use when presenting your 
Essence.  Ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected static 
patterns of value is what we have to work with, not things-in-themselves.

The small self is as my signature statement at the bottom proclaims: 
a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected, 
inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, static patterns of 
value responding to Dynamic Quality.  The large self is Quality 
(Dynamic and static), imho.  So simple, so elegant!

Parsing is the nature of thought and language.

         OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMM.



>[Ron]:
>>A "radical metaphysics" is a metaphysic of the development
>>of the large self of awareness one of your own private experience.
>>The large self is Quality, the small self is the subjective observer
>>in an objective universe, the large self IS the universe, aware.
>
>When it comes to paradoxes, I tend to follow the principle of 
>Occam's Razor, which states that "entities should not be multiplied 
>needlessly. The simplest of two or more competing theories is 
>preferable, and an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be 
>attempted in terms of what is already known."
>
>Therefore, I accept existence as what is self-evident -- the 
>relation of a subject to its perceived objects.  Whatever I sense, 
>feel, experience, or apprehend is known to me.  It is the cognitive 
>awareness of my self identity.  I do not share this awareness with 
>other individuals or some qualitative realm of the universe.  It is 
>my my own being-aware, my proprietary self.  That self is neither 
>small nor large, but integral to "me".  To deny this fact is to deny 
>my existence.
>
>Now, you said something to Ron that is not only significant but that 
>bears on my concept of differentiated selfness and its perspective:
>
>[Marsha]:
>>Yesterday I started to wonder what it actually means that
>>everything is always in a state of change?  Everything!  I'm 
>>thinking of the water analogy:  If everything is water,
>>and there is nothing that is not water, then there is no meaning
>>to water, for there is no way of distinguishing a difference
>>between water and nonwater.  Seems if you translate that into 
>>change, then what we have actually defined as change is 
>>illusion.  And if our definition of change is an illusion, how can 
>>anything be conceived of as constant when everything is changing?
>
>If objective reality were nothing but water, there could be no 
>differentiated experience, value, morality, or freedom to 
>choose.  That's a profound observation, Marsha, and it demonstrates 
>why Difference is necessary for the realization of value -- not only 
>difference in terms of what is perceived, but difference in the 
>"agency" of perception.  As a system, existence is characterized by 
>Difference and Relation.
>
>The individuated agent of this system is the Self.  You and I relate 
>(respond) to universal objects and events in different ways, which 
>distinguishes Marsha's valuistic worldview from Ham's.  Neither view 
>is absolute or more "truthful" than the other because all 
>existential truth is relative.  Yet, difference is an absolute 
>principle.  It separates Sensibility from Beingness as the primary 
>dichotomy from which S/O existence is derived or actualized.  And it 
>divides objects (in space) and events (in time) from the particular 
>self that experiences them.  In this scheme of things, each self is 
>a free agent of value, and the individual subject is uniquely 
>positioned to realize Pirsig's euphemism that "some things are 
>better than others."

Yes, Ham, I agree with you that Difference is necessary.  Viva la 
Difference!  It is the mistake of thinking that these differences are 
somehow real instead of a convenience evolved for survival.  This 
misunderstanding seems to be a maladaptation and the cause of much suffering.

I am considering your description of Sensibility and Being.  They do 
seem to be two functions of the self, the five senses as sensual, and 
thought as becoming.  It's the becoming that is the troublesome ego 
which confuses itself (spov) for Reality.

Neither my view, nor your view, nor RMP's view is Absolute Truth, and 
there is beauty in knowing that, don't you think?  My relative 
opinion, though, is that the MOQ is a wonderful step-forward 
world-view that brings together and East and West, feminine & 
masculine, this and that, to point to an elegant and better way.



>So, with your help, I believe I've answered your question as to what 
>I think is "the real self".  If you and I can offer any further 
>insight on this question, feel free to ask.

No Ham, you haven't given me any idea what you think is real about 
the self.  Where or what is this individuated agent other than Quality?


Marsha



.
_____________

The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing, interrelated and 
interconnected, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual, 
static patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.

.
.