[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> Okay, John.  Sorry for confusing you with Joe.  Then the only quarrel I
> have is with Andre.
>

You mean, when you think they're Andre's words, you have a quarrel, but when
you realize their mine, you don't?

Wow.  Truth really is relative.

:-)




>
> [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.
>
>
>

And I'll certainly settle for that.  That is the nature of awareness.  At
least that I'm aware of.
Maybe tis different for Andre.  Can differing people have differing
awareness of awareness?




>
>
> 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.
>
>
Pirsig doesn't teach the rejection of the individual subject; he puts him in
his relative place.  I recently read Royce's theories of the definition of
"sin".  One that stuck in my mind was the sin of absolutizing the finite.
 This particular "sin" is most dangerous when the self is absolutized - it
leads to all kinds of problems in society.



>
>  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.
>
>
I got a $100 sez you're wrong.  Your sense of the value of these little
rectangles of paper is caused by nothing but social patterns.



>   Do you actually reside in Reno, or are you vacationing there?


I live just over the mountains, on the California side, where the founders
of Nevada's comstock lode came from and thus, a much-travelled route.    We
come here frequently for a break and to do our big city shopping.

Yesterday in a Casino, I saw people playing blackjack with a video-terminal
woman.  She was life-size, quite buxom and attractive and "her" table was
crowded.  It made sense, in a way, seeing as $2 tables are non-economic for
the Casino to hire a real live (usually Chinese) person to shuffle and deal.
 She had distinctly pleasant mannerisms programmed into her facial
expressions, but no value-sensibility at all.  Thus giving me a creepy
feeling.

Take care,

John