[MD] Freedom within structure.

[Ham Priday]

Evening, Joe --


> Hi Ham and all,
>
> For me the only way to explain "the emergence of proprietary
> awareness" is value, not indefinable individuality in metaphysics.
>
> Inorganic, organic one-celled, organic multiple-celled beings
> are observed that do not have "proprietary awareness".  In a
> sentient being emotions are experienced and indefinable in
> possessing "proprietary awareness".

Funny, I tend to think of individuation as definable because we define all 
experience.  By differentiating Value we actualize experience.  So if we 
can't define existence we're not experiencing it.  What is "indefinable" is 
that which we DON'T experience, such as absolute reality or the uncreated 
source of existence.

> "Essence" does not define a distinction between individualities with the
> manifest capabilities of sentient behavior without proposing an "Essence"
> for each individual.  It proposes a body/soul division in the existence of 
> a
> sentient individual.

Joe, if you read my on-line thesis you'll see that I posit the individuated 
self as a "negate", by which I mean that proprietary awareness is an 
"exclusion" of Essence.  What gives us the power of a free agent is our 
sensibility to Value.  Although Value and Sensibility are both derivatives 
of Essence, a negated self is required to separate them into the localized 
subject (negate) and objectivized reality (essent).  What makes this 
possible is the negational potential of Essence whereby nothingness divides 
the proprietary self from its otherness.  I refer to this phenomenon as the 
"Self/Other dichotomy", and it is the genesis of all difference.

> Individuality and Essence are confused in being indefinable
> in a theory proposing a difference in existence SOM.  The
> difference in levels in existence is proposed by MOQ evolution.

In order to make Evolution his fundamental reality (DQ), Pirsig had to avoid 
positing an Absolute (immutable) Source which is not subject to the 
conditions of time and space.  This restricts his metaphysics to a paradigm 
of material existence In truth, time is experiential, not essential or 
fundamental; the precept of "events in process" is the mode of human 
experience.

> A one-level fits all "existence" is inadequate.  A two level
>: metaphysics of an "existence" S/O can only be imaginary.
> Where's the beef?

"Levels" is Pirsig's arbitrary paradigm for existence, not mine.  Absolute 
Reality is One in Essence.  Difference begins with two, and all subsequent 
differentiation -- including the individuation of value-sensibility --  
derives from the Self/Other dichotomy.

> The observation of levels in evolution like that accepted in
> the MOQ demands that the more rational explanation for
> evolution, levels in existence, needs an emotional metaphysical
> approval as physics with a language of defined mathematics
> are inadequate.

If I've untangled the meaning of this unwieldly sentence correctly, you're 
saying that because Pirsig's metaphysics of levels is "emotional" in nature, 
mathematics and logical reasoning are inadequate to deal with it.  This 
would be true, except that I don't accept your assertion that "levels in 
existence" is a "more rational explanation for evolution" than, say, the 
experience of things and events in process.

> Two different kinds of existence as subjective and objective
> in an observation for insentient, sentient1, and sentient2 behavior,
> ignores problems in individuality and differing qualities.

You've totally lost me here.  What is "sentient 1 and sentient 2 behavior"? 
If it's any help, subject and object (SO) are not "two different kinds of 
existence" but the co-dependent contingencies of existence.  And Essence is 
not an existent because it transcends all difference.

> You cannot accept DQ/SQ, and remain attached to only
> an intentional and real existence proposed in the metaphysical
> definition SO.  MOQ embodies the more varied concepts of
> an evolution in existence, needed for a logic of evolution
> beyond S/O.

Value-sensibility encompasses as many existential variations as can be 
experienced.  We don't need DQ for an expansion of sensibility or for "more 
varied concepts of evolution."  For that matter, we don't even need a "logic 
of evolution," whatever that is supposed to mean.  If you're capable of 
conceptualizing "beyond SO" (existence), you can forget about evolution, 
since the uncreated Source doesn't evolve.

Thanks for your thoughts, Joe.  I don't mean to be dismissive of your 
analysis; it's just that you are intractably tied to an evolutionary thesis 
that is incompatible with my philosophy of Essence.

Cheers and best wishes,
Ham