[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[Ham Priday]

On 3/26/10 at 8:36 PM, John Carl wrote:

> Sorry Ham,
>
> My fault.  I don't label my interjections properly.
> I'm lazy that way.  But it was me, not Andre who said...
>
>> Because the individual, when objectively analyzed, requires
>> context for definition of itself and proper self-understanding.
>> Without realization of context, individuation disappears.
>> Thus the individual cannot be taken as fundamental all by itself,
>> without causing all kinds of metaphysical problems.

Okay, John.  Sorry for confusing you with Joe.  Then the only quarrel I have 
is with Andre.

[Ham, previously]:
> The context of individual subjects and objects is that of
> difference and relation.

[John]:
> I would say difference IS a relation thus the context of individualization
> is relationship.  A "relationship" is a connection between objectified
> concepts.  (or conceptualized objects)

I'll settle for difference (i.e., differentiation) as "relation", but I 
still maintain that the nature of awareness is proprietary sensibility which 
individualizes awareness and conceptualization.

> Well, I disagree on several points then.  First, I could just as easily 
> say,
> "the nature of proprietary sensibility is subjective awareness", therefore
> sensibility IS a property of relational existence.  What else could
> possibly qualify?

Proprietary sensibility and individual awareness are synonomous.  The reason 
I defined the "nature" of awareness as proprietary was to make the point 
that conscious awareness is unique to the individual.  It is the Self, not 
the universe or an extracorporeal level, who is aware of (experiences) 
objects and senses their value

> And anything can be objectively analyzed.  You just have to accept
> that your objectifying is relative and not absolute.

Yes, everything in existence is relational,  In fact, that IS the 
individual's objectivized reality.

I really think we're on the same page metaphysically, John.  It's trying to 
fit this into the MoQ scheme which causes the confusion.  The Pirsigians 
consider any relation a "quality pattern" and reject the individual subject 
who "creates" the pattern.  Instead, they insist that Quality creates the 
pattern and the individual must borrow something called "Intellect" from a 
cosmic hierarchy in order to recognize or interpret it.  The whole concept 
of subjective realization gets lost in this paradigm.

> But I bet there are "static social patterns of value" out there
> that you could sit on and know it!

The individual is the cognizant locus of all "known" value. 
Value-sensibility is the very essence of conscious awareness.  "Static" and 
"dynamic" do not relate to value in my vernacular, nor do "social patterns" 
add anything significant to my sense of value.

> Or maybe they'd sit on yours.  Isn't that called a lapdance?

Very cute, John.  Do you actually reside in Reno, or are you vacationing 
there?

Essentially yours,
Ham