[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Ham Priday]

Hi John [Marsha quoted] --


The confusion I have seen here in the last few days on the issue of 
experience and the absolute, and what Pirsig meant by "direct experience", 
is unprecedented.  I can't speak for Pirsig, but I
need to rectify a statement you made to Marsha, apparently based on a 
misconception of my epistemology.

On 2/20 at 1:50 PM, you wrote:
> But as Ham points out, without the judgement there can be no valuation of
> the event.  However he takes then the judger as absolute whereas I see it
> as none of the three legs of the tripod can be absolute - you need a 
> subject,
> an object and a valuation all at once or there is no experience.

I do not regard the "judger" (subject, observer) as absolute, nor do I 
accept your "tripod" theory of experience.  Difference (i.e., number) begins 
with the division of the Prime Source to create a duality, which in 
numerical terms is expressed as '2'.  By the principle of Occam's razor, 
there is no need to extend the differentiation formula to a trinity, a 
tetrad, or any other finite paradigm.

In my epistemology, existence is a dichotomy whose primary contingencies are 
Sensibility and Otherness.  Neither of these contingents is independent or 
"absolute" in itself, but together they represent the existential 
differentiation needed to actualize the appearance of a pluralistic 
universe.  In living creatures, Sensibility is individuated to create 
proprietary awareness (i.e., value-sensibility) which is the "self" or 
subject of experience.  Otherness, the object of experience, is an 
experiential construct of value that involves the space/time integration of 
sensibility, the psycho-organic perception process, and (in man) the 
intellectual apprehension (conceptualization) and valuation of what is 
perceived.

There is no "direct experience".  All experience is secondary to 
value-sensibility, as is the objective world we construct.  In other words, 
the appearance of physical existence in time and space is a self/other 
manifestation of the fundamental dichotomy.  There is only one absolute that 
transcends difference and encompasses all as One.  It is the primary Source 
which I call Essence.

The MoQ confusion stems from the fact that Pirsig is a "monist", not an 
absolutist.  And, although he did not name or posit an "absolute source", 
his equivalency paradigm "Experience = Quality = Reality" leaves the 
inference that one or more of these equivalents is "absolute", whereas in 
fact all three relate to the finite, existential world.

Essentially speaking,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:49 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Hello John,
>> >
>> > How would you break this down to address: the experiencer,
>> > the experience and the experienced?
>> > because undoubtedly they are descriptions of the same thing,
>> > the event, the experience, no?
>>
>> They are not the same in the conventional use of English.
>> _I am seeing a tree. _'I' is the seer.  The experience is seeing.
>> The tree is the seen.  Experience has become a trinity.
>> What I have been saying is that only the seeing is a fact in
>> that moment.  The seer, 'I' , and the seen, 'tree' are surmised
>> from the experience of seeing.  They are built from patterns, no?
>
> I agree the tree, the I, and this act of seeing are built from patterns,
> yes.
>
> But I cannot 'see' how handing the crown of significance to any
> one part of the trinity of experience is better in any way.
> All three legs of the tripod depend upon the others to avoid toppling.
>
> "The seeing" is not a fact if it's a hallucination
>
> The seer is not a fact if there is no seeing.
>
> The seen is not a fact if either the seer or the seeing disappears
> from view,
>
> Therefore, they are the three, interdependent in order for
> experience to occur.
>
>> There are grammatical rules, dictionaries and social training
>> for interpreting the words we use, no?
>>
>> yes!  Which influences the conceptual frameworks of meaning
>> we build.
>
> I agree completely.
>
>> > but to address the experience of the hot stove, it depends.
>> > It can be good, or it can be bad.  When a child learns to listen
>> > carefully to its mother's warnings, that is an overall good.
>> > If the child is so badly injured that she dies, it's an overall bad.
>>
>> Judgements based on individual static pattern histories and dynamic
>> context.  I've always wondered if RMP would say there is a difference
>> between the value/experience and the judgements made subsequent
>> to the experience. I would think there is a big difference, no?
>
> But as Ham points out, without the judgement there can be no valuation of
> the event.  However he takes then the judger as absolute whereas I see it 
> as
> none of the three legs of the tripod can be absolute - you need a subject,
> an object and a valuation all at once or there is no experience.
>
>> > Thus the value or Quality of the event is not in the immediate,
>> > experience, but in the overall context - an interpretation between the
>> > subject and object AND some third overarching principle of valuation.
>> > Interpretation is triadic in nature and thus more inherently stable 
>> > than
>> > the diadic relationship of S/O.
>> >
>> > As you know,
>>
>> I know Absolutely nothing, how about you?
>>
>> Marsha
>
> I thought there were no absolutes. :-)
>
> John