[MD] Marsha's (s)OL

[markhsmit]

Ham,
The self evident truth that all experience is differentiated and relational is a flawed 
assumption, IMHO.  It only becomes differentiated when it is conceptualized.
Before that, it is Essence or Quality or what we exist in day to day, an
undifferentiated spectrum of noise, that is, everything.

Take for example all the sensations that are not relationally objectified.
It is difficult to do since one you think about them they become such.
My point (as with Pirsig, I believe) is that we live with Essence or non-differentiated
stuff at every moment.  It is only a small amount of such existence that
translates into the intellectual (and I don' mean smart), or self relational
existence.

The negation of not other, in my opinion, states that there is no such thing as other.
However, when we communicate experiences in a reflective way, other is born.
Now, it may be difficult to imagine a sense of existence where other does not
exist, but that is the way we were born.  At the moment of birth there was only
Will.  No self, no other.  Then that became all self, no other.  Then the
intellectual relational mind began to develop.

A good description of this can be found in the works of Donna Williams.  Donna
is an autistic person who is able to communicate with us.  She is able, however,
to transcend worlds between our differentiated world and that of her past
undifferentiated world.  The book Autism and Sensing: The Unlost Instinct covers
this well.

The opinions expressed in my posts are mine alone, and may or may not have
any relation to reality as seen by others.

Cheers,
Willblake2

On Oct 17, 2009, at 11:40:20 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] Marsha's (s)OL
Date:   October 17, 2009 11:40:20 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Dear Platt --


> There are lots of words defined in the dictionary whose meanings
> are obscure because they they are rarely used. I take it as a general
> principle in writing that one prefer the simple to the complex, the
> familiar to the strange. Thus, 'contraiety" might better be expressed
> as "opposed" or "in opposition," "differential otherness" as "separate,"
> and "negated entities" as -- well, I don't have an inkling of what that
> means. Maybe at death one becomes a "negated entity?" As for ". . .
> it's the concepts not the words which make a philosophy," unless
> the words have meaning for the reader the philosophy and its
> concepts will remain forever on a shelf gathering dust.

Touché. I'd rather have you disagreeing with me than continually confounded 
by my obtuseness.
Platt, the word is spelled with another 'r' ("contrariety"), and it means 
"oppositional or contradictory in form," as you have gathered. Existence is 
also oppositional in its dynamics, manifesting both staticity and change, 
genesis and entropy, activity and passivity, expansion and contraction, 
anabolism and catabolism, etc. And relationally differentiated experience 
(empirical knowledge) is all we really know.

The concept of "negation" is rooted in the precept that an absolute can only 
create an "other" by denying some aspect of itself. An analogy I use is 
that of the mountain-climber who has ascended to the summit and can only 
proceed by descent. In other words, existence is "reductional" rather than 
an "addition" to absolute Essence. As Cusa put it, the first principle is 
the 'not-other' from which all otherness is negated. Entities are therefore 
'negates' estranged or separated from the primary source.
[Ham]:
> Absolute Essence is not an "experience"; it transcends experience.
> What you experience "in the presence of great beauty" is
> differentiated value.

[Platt]:
> After I put the experience into words, the value I experience
> becomes hardened into the proverbial finger pointing at the moon.
> But, there's nothing "differentiated" about the value experience
> itself prior to thought.

Prior to thought (or intellection) there is no experience but sensibility. 
I concluded some time ago that Pirsig's notion of "pure, pre-intellectual 
experience" is epistemically flawed, which makes value-realization 
incomprehensible in the cognitive sense. For that reason, I refer to pure 
(undifferentiated) value as Sensibility, as distinguished from Experience 
which is always relational. Experience is, indeed, "the cutting edge of 
reality," as Pirsig says, but it's the reality of Existence, not DQ or 
Essence. I think this is where my communication problems with the 
Pirsigians begins. The autonomous agent of Value is not itself Value 
(Quality) or a "pattern of" Value; the agent is individuated Sensibility, 
otherwise known as subjective awareness. Regrettably, Mr. Pirsig has all 
but rejected proprietary awareness in his zeal to "overcome" subject/object 
duality.

Platt, I sincerely believe that if you will open your mind to the 
self-evident truth that all experience is differentiated and relational, and 
acept the metaphysical principle that "from unity comes diversity", you will 
have little difficulty understanding my philosophy.

> Thanks for the suggestions. My tastes are less sophisticated than yours.
> I lean more toward Respighi's tone poems and Tchaikovsky's ballet
> music. Similarly, I'll take Norman Rockwell, Andre Wyeth and Winslow
> Homer over Jackson Pollock, Andy Warhol and Robert Mapplethorpe.
> As my dear old Dad used to say, " 'There's no accounting for taste,' said
> the little old lady as she kissed the cow." As for "inexplicable
> coincidences," I find you and I meeting on this site to be one of my most
> pleasurable. It may not be beautiful, but for me it's been fun. As Pirsig
> might say, "DQ at work."

I concur with your selections, and the pleasure is mine, Platt. I also have 
been accused of having "epicurean" tastes. And your comments about esthetic 
tastes being subjective actually make my point that all value is realized 
individually. When Protagoras wrote that "Man is the measure of all 
things", he was referring to the cognizant agent of Value, not to a 
collective aggregate or pattern.. Unrealized Quality or Value is a 
meaningless reification.

May I specifically recommend two musical treats that I've come to cherish in 
my golden years? One is 'The Presentation of the Rose' sequence from 
Richard Strauss's Der Rosenkavalier. The second is Franz Liszt's 'A Faust 
Symphony'. I have a superb new EMI recording of the latter by Kurt Mazur 
and the Gewandhaus Orchestra. (The seven-disc set includes contains several 
of the composer's more familiar tone poems and piano concertos.) But then, 
as your dad implied, I may be making love to a cow ;-).

Esthetically yours,
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/