[MD] ego vs self

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Bo --



[Ham, previously]:
> Personally, I don't consider "awareness of objective reality"
> a "monster platypus".  I consider it an accurate definition of
> existence.

[Bo]:
> What I meant was: Regarding SUBJECTIVE awareness as
> fundamentally different from an OBJECTIVE world "out there".
> i.e. regarding this as existence's deepest divide -  then - this
> creates paradoxes. On the other hand, regarding the S/O
> (in moqspeak) as a mere static subset of the DQ/SQ, then
> all paradoxes disappear.

The paradox is intellectual.  It's the belief that "difference" (duality) is 
fundamental.  Subject/object is primary to experiential awareness 
(existence) but it is not "fundamental".  Ultimate reality is 
non-differential; it is NOT divided.

> So (starting all over): Is the "awareness/what it's aware of"
> your fundamental split?

I regard subjective awareness of objective otherness "primary" to EXISTENCE. 
"Subsets" presuppose a divided source, just as does DQ/SQ.  Whatever is 
divided or "contingent upon" cannot be the fundamental principle of a 
metaphysical thesis.  That's why I have defined Essence as the One Absolute 
Reality from which all difference is derived.  In my ontology the appearance 
of difference is a finitely reduced awareness (sensibility) of Essence. 
Hierarchies, subsets, patterns, and "dynamics" are superfluous and 
unnecessary in this paradigm.

> Re. Descartes (who you initially said dismissed the "self",
> but now admit affirmed it)

"The basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt is to defeat skepticism 
on its own ground.  Begin by doubting the truth of everything - not only the 
evidence of the senses and the more extravagant cultural presuppositions, 
but even the fundamental process of reasoning itself.  If any particular 
truth about the world can survive this extreme skeptical challenge, then it 
must be truly indubitable and therefore a perfectly certain foundation for 
knowledge. The First Meditation, then, is an extended exercise in learning 
to doubt everything that I believe, considered at three distinct levels:
1)  Preceptual illusion
2)  The Dream Problem
3)  A Deceiving God
'I am, I exist' is necessarily true whenever the thought occurs to me.  This 
truth neither derives from sensory information nor depends upon the reality 
of an external world, and I would have to exist even if I were 
systematically deceived.  For even an omnipotent god could not cause it to 
be true, at one and the same time, both that I am deceived and that I do not 
exist.  If I am deceived, then at least I AM." \
    -- [Encyclopedia Briticannica: Philosophy Pages]

[Ham]:
> Using the MoQ hierarchy as your bible, you come to the opposite
> conclusion: "Everything I experience is a pattern, therefore I am a
> pattern too"!

[Bo]:
> The human being is an aggregate of the four quality levels
> (including all their "patterns"). Sure, another Q tenet.
>
> I do not regard Descartes as "pre-intellectual". He was the one who
> brought intellect-as-SOM to a head with himself as a thinking subject
> aware of a world. If this is an example of your interpretation of my
> position ... no wonder!

The "wonder" is that you persist in redefining existential reality in 
Pirsigian terms that apply to relational existence.  Hierarchies and 
aggregates are non-metaphysical and therefore have no place in Ultimate 
Reality.

Thanks for responding, Bo.  I'm afraid we're still intellectually divided.

Ham