Greetings Ham,

On May 1, 2012, at 2:25 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1@veri...> wrote:

>
> Marsha --
>
>
>> I have not come to you for a solution, but with a couple of
>> questions and an observation.  Putting aside the innumerable
>> causes and conditions, I'd like to point to one process.
>> My point was that to dichotomize self (subject) and other
>> (object) is the result of consciousness, making both entities
>> dependent on the process of conceptual construction.
>> Also, to assign this reified "subject" as being "more fundamental"
>> is a further indication of this process.
>
> Is the self/other dichotomy really a "result of consciousness"?  If so, how do we get to consciousness from pure Essence or Quality?

I never suggested consciousness equaled conceptualization, but that conceptualization has evolved as the primary cognitive process of consciousness.   One may experience pure, perception (sans concepts) and one may have experience without either concepts or percepts (unpatterned).  Imho.  


> I believe it's important to take the 'ex nihilo' factor into consideration when formulating an ontology or cosmology.  Otherwise, we're left without a fundamental cause or source.

I do no think 'first cause' is necessary if you consider 'When this is, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.'.  Awareness arises in dependence upon an indefinite number of causes and conditions and is therefore a function neither of a "subject" by itself nor of "objects" of the world.


> You're plugging your own words into my statements.  I didn't say that the subject is "more fundamental" than the object.  What I said was that "neither contingent is more or less 'real' than the other," which means that subject and object are co-dependent contingencies in existence   We need an 'otherness' to experience Value in an orderly fashion.  Otherness (Beingness) provides this order.

I apologize if I misinterpreted "Subjective "quality" (awareness) is "more fundamental" because ...".  


> We derive our logic, relational (space/time) precepts, and predictability from the essential Value that is sensed pre-intellectually (just as Pirsig claimed for the "Quality experience").  

We derive our logic, relational precepts and predictability from recurrent relationships.  I think that our selves, our worlds, and our minds can be understood more fully if we consider them not as 'autonomous entities' existing apart, but rather as aspects of recurrent patterns of value (interactions, or processes) that concurrently arise.

Thanks.


Marsha



> This enables the actual experience of specific things and events to be objectivized or constructed, in accordance with the overall cosmic design, to represent our valuistic sensibilities.  That's where "process" comes into the picture.
>
> So you see, Marsha, Self and Other are more than "patterns".  They infer substantive, tangible entities that make existence real for us.  I like to think of existential reality as a "reduction" of  Essence caused by the nothingness (gaps) in our experience.  That's what my "negation hypothesis" was intended to explain.
>
> The antithesis of Essence (i.e, what IS) is Nothingness (what is NOT). Since it is clear that existence includes both absolutes in order to account for difference, I borrowed from Heidegger to posit negation as the primary differentiator of existence.  Unfortunately, the idea of an Absolute Source negating nothingness is viewed as problematic by Mark and a few others who've been willing to consider my ontology.  I still maintain, however, that the creative potential of Essence logically must be negational inasmuch as what is already absolute "can have no other beside it" unless that other is a negation.
>
> Does this concept make any sense to you, Marsha?  Has my ontology helped you to realize the reality of your self as a participant in a "real world"? (I'll be disappointed, but not offended, if it hasn't.)
>
> Always appreciate your interest,
> Ham
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html