[MD] MOQ and the Future: An Inquiry into Usefulness

[Joseph Maurer]

On 11/17/09 11:08 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

<snip>
You're wrong that I deny motion or change in the empirical reality that we
call existence.  Pirsig's levels are a pleasant euphemism that has no
special significance for me.  I see no objective evidence to support the
theory that "higher levels" (social and intellectual) dominate "lower
levels" (biological and inorganic), or that evolution is a progression
toward some ideal Goodness.  Nor do I understand any philosophical advantage
in arbitrarily dividing the universe into a system of levels.
 
On the other hand, I see much to be gained in understanding experiential
existence as an awareness/otherness dichotomy. For one thing, it places the
individual self distinctly in the realm of subjectivity, allowing the
objective world to be recognized as a value construct of the self.  It
supports the principle of man's autonomy and freedom on which the
enlightened nations of the world were founded. And it offers a plausible
purpose for man's existence, namely, the realization of essential value,
which by the power of his reasoning can direct himself and his fellow man
toward a more authentic and moral society.
 
Best regards,
Ham
 
Hi Ham and all,

How are awareness/otherness conceptualized?  If in experiential existence
there is 1 in awareness and 0 in otherness change is indeterminate.  If
there is 1 in awareness and 1 in otherness what is the distinction between
them to make them a dichotomy?  How can I conceptualize a difference?  I can
only conceptualize 1 and there is no change in my awareness of otherness.

 

Joe

> 
> On 11/17/09 6:56 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
> 
>> Hi Ham and all,
>> 
>> In the face of undefined gravity it is not a huge leap of faith to
>> analogize the experience of a rock falling, or atoms in fixed orbits.
>> Essence on the other hand clouds the perceived reality by
>> mistakenly denying motion in reality apart from itself.   Imho
>> Pirsig correctly identifies motion in the levels of evolution.
>> Evolution is a simple, brilliant explanation for levels in existence.
>> From that start it is relatively easy to comprehend the one and the many.
>> 
>> Essence on the other hand is tied to divinity and is totally
>> incomprehensible while resting on the shoulders of an author
>> who proposes that evolution is not a change in existence,
>> but simply independent nodules of essence.
> 
> You're right that it doesn't take a huge leap of faith -- or much
> intellect -- to imagine a falling rock or atoms in orbit having experience
> and making choices.  Such "analogies" are not philosophy, however.  They're
> childish notions that resurrect the animistic mythology of our forbearers.
> 
> You're wrong that I deny motion or change in the empirical reality that we
> call existence.  Pirsig's levels are a pleasant euphemism that has no
> special significance for me.  I see no objective evidence to support the
> theory that "higher levels" (social and intellectual) dominate "lower
> levels" (biological and inorganic), or that evolution is a progression
> toward some ideal Goodness.  Nor do I understand any philosophical advantage
> in arbitrarily dividing the universe into a system of levels.
> 
> On the other hand, I see much to be gained in understanding experiential
> existence as an awareness/otherness dichotomy.  For one thing, it places the
> individual self distinctly in the realm of subjectivity, allowing the
> objective world to be recognized as a value construct of the self.  It
> supports the principle of man's autonomy and freedom on which the
> enlightened nations of the world were founded.  And it offers a plausible
> purpose for man's existence, namely, the realization of essential value,
> which by the power of his reasoning can direct himself and his fellow man
> toward a more authentic and moral society.
> 
> Best regards,
> 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/