[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --

I had intended to respond to your post last night, but the hour was late, 
which caused me to exhibit my attention deficit and send a correction to you 
instead of that other apostle.  (Funny, you both look the same to me!)

> I believe the Eastern Wisdom confirms my understanding,
> is that the same as "supports"?  And as I've postulated before,
> objects are no more fundamental to self than self is
> fundamental to realization of objects.  "CoDependent Arising"
> is the proper term.  Each aspect of reality confirms the other
> aspect.  You can't have a realization of self without an other
> and there can be no realization of otherness without a self.
> That's Mark's point, which I chime in on.  If epistemology
> necessitates hierarchy, then I disagree with you and
> Mr. Pirsig both.

I'll accept "confirms" as meaning "supports" in this context.  The 
biological body is a self-identified object, so in that sense it's 
fundamental to selfness.  I agree with your "co-dependency theory", except 
that the contingents (mind and body) are dissimilar essents.  No "hierarchy" 
is implicated in my ontogeny other than the primary dichotomy I've already 
explained.

[Ham, previously]:

> The only "concept" Descartes was concerned with was:
> What is provable beyond all doubt?"  Things and events
> could be mere illusions, tricks played on him by a deceitful
> god.  All that he knew for a certainty was that he himself
> was the Knower of these things.

[John]:
> And here he went just as astray as assuming the things
> and events of a given reality. How can there be a knower
> if there is nothing to know?

The essent of Selfness presupposes self-awareness.  Although that's a 
tautological statement, its truth seems to have gotten lost in the 
insistence by some that "knowing" and "things" are synonomous. 
Consciousness is the preferred term, for it defines the "capacity for 
knowing" as opposed to the objects consciously experienced.

> I am convinced Royce is on the right track when he takes
> skepticism to its ultimate reaches, that VALUE is the one
> bedrock of certainty upon which self and other is based.
> When he asks "what is provable beyond all doubt"?  His
> argument from the certainty of the existence of error is [the
> same as] Pirsig's conclusion about the existence of Quality.

But that Value (what I call "affinity") can only be realized dihotomously --  
that is, by a sensible agent whose awareness is separated or estranged from 
the essential source.  In other words, there is no value until it is 
realized.  That's where you and RMP are epistemologcally wrong.  I'll repeat 
myself again: Unrealized Value is an oxymoron.

> Also, could it not be said that the existence of a supreme
> deceitful being is just as much otherness as things in themselves?
> I think philosophers get in trouble when their skepticism at
> knowing reality "as it really is" leads them to postulating
> nothingness as an antidote.

Philosophers are always in trouble because, like Wall Street bankers, 
they're speculators.  But how else can we develop a thesis that purports to 
explain reality?  We can't get it from the laws of Science.

> But surely you must see and admit that (these) words and
> symbols would never be realized by a cognizant subject,
> except they had first been created and transmitted by a
> vibrant cultural process.  I don't see how you can miss
> this vital point, except through willful refusal.

I'm all for a "vibrant" culture, John, but the concept must come first. 
Concepts originate from the introspection, intuitiion, and intellection of
individuals.  The words and symbols required for transmitting concepts to 
others come later, and of course they are borrowed from one's particular 
culture.

> But this "self", is not a narrow, individual entity.  It's a
> complex, socially entwined creation of realization.
> But I do like your formulation of "self actualizing value
> through experience".  That sums it up nicely.

Thanks, John.  It also sums up my concept of morality.  I call it the 
exercise of "rational, self-directed value."  (No salsa required.)

> That [this] betterness is what is demonstrably fundamental
> to all experience or reality or whatever you want to use
> to reflect upon "the whole enchilada".

... For better or worse.

Happy salad making!

--Ham