[MD] knowledge

[MarshaV]

On May 16, 2010, at 12:15 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> Dear Marsha --
> 
> 
> On May 16, 2010, at 3:28 AM, Ham Priday wrote:
> 
>>> Human beings are the "realizers".  Let's give the individual subject
>>> some credit.  It is WE, and not things, whose reality experience is
>>> intellectualized from Value.
> 
> [Marsha]:
>> By "realizers" do you mean 'intentionally aware'?  Because it seems
>> to me human beings are mostly unaware pattern processors.  Maybe > a question is:  Patterns have Lila, but is that the way it must be?
> 
> No.  By "realizer" I mean knower, subject or apprehender of awareness. Unless by "intentional" you mean focusing attention on a particular phenomenon, I see nothing "intentional" about being aware.  It is the nature of the self to be aware, just as it is man's nature to be value-sensible.

One can be aware of perceptions, and one can be aware of conceptions.   One can increase awareness by intending to pay attention.  One can eat an apple without ever noticing the process, or one can be VERY aware of the smell, taste, texture, sound, color & shape, and/or the memories associated with the past apple experiences.  Very aware or very conscious, you understand what I mean; I don't want to get lost in the vocabulary.  


> You've lost me with "human beings are mostly unaware pattern processors." I'm not sure whether this implies that human beings are largely ignorant of the things they observe or simply that they ignore them.   Patterns (phenomena) don't "have" anyone; it's the other way around.  Individuals create the patterns (intellectual precepts) that constitute their experience of reality.

Habits have people.  An obvious example: smoking had me for a very long time.  The cigarettes were smoked but my participation in the experience was often missing.  Well, humans are mostly just a flow of habits.  Remember when RMP wrote about the man having a heart attack and suddenly became newly aware?  


> Also, under the Reading & Comprehension thread, you said (to John):
>> I think that nature is one of the most dynamic static patterns,
>> but it's still pattern applied to DQ.
> 
> Isn't your qualifying phrase "most dynamic of static" self-contradictory? How can a pattern be simultaneously both static and dynamic?  You also told Ian that "'nature' is a static pattern of value, not an absolute."  Since when does "static" negate "absoluteness"?  This Pirsigian notion of static vs. dynamic as applied to experiential awareness stretches credibility and is fraught with problems, in my opinion.

Static is not a thing-in-itself, it's a range from very static to very dynamic.   I find the static-dynamic attributes work very well for the MoQ.  


> 
> [John on 5/16]:
>> I can't imagine anything more dynamic than  nature.
> 
> I side with John on this issue.  Moreover, I see no metaphysical justification for assuming that ultimate reality (the uncreated source of existence, whether you call it Quality or Essence) is "dynamic" as opposed to "static".


From my point-of-view, I find 'unpatterned experience' and 'patterned experience' more accurately reflects Quality, but then my I'm not a metaphysics.  

OI hope I haven't discouraged or postponed Matt's reply. 

Thanks Ham.



Marsha
 
 
 



 
___