Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 01:55:45 BST

  • Next message: gav: "Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of"
  • Next message: Kevin Perez: "Re: MD A Christian interpretation of the MOQ"

    Hi Platt --

    Behind that facade of polite naiveté is an urge to shoot holes in my theory.
    That's all right, Platt; I'd probably do the same if it was yours. What I
    said was:

    > Everything you experience in the world is an "other"
    > to yourself.

    Your interrupted with:

    > Do you mean "other to yourself" as "outside my body?" No.
    > That can't be it because I experience a lot that goes on inside
    > my body like heart palpitations and hunger, not to mention
    > thoughts. Do you mean I can't get outside myself to
    > see myself? True I can't see me as others see me, but
    > I can see me like nobody else can in the sense that I alone
    > feel my joy, pain, guilt, love, etc.

    I include your body in the world you experience, and I treat man's
    biological organism and all its neurological components as "otherness" in my
    thesis. What is left is that which cannot be defined as an entity or event
    in the physical world, namely, your awareness of a self with feelings. Your
    last sentence says it all. Those emotions you have enumerated express what
    I call "conditional" or relational values. They paint your portrait in the
    hall of Essence. (How's that for an anology?)

    > There's an old saying in the ad game about writing CIPU copy,
    > pronounced KickPoo, meaning Clear If Previously Understood.

    Point well taken. I've had similar communication problems with others no
    doubt more intelligent that myself and have learned, but not sufficiently
    practiced, the art of simplicity. Incidentally, I can get lost in MoQ talk,
    quite often having to ask for a simpler explanation; so I don't know how
    competent I am at understanding philosophy in general. I find that you
    begin to acquire the authors' vocabulary after reading a few pages of a
    thesis, and with it comes comprehension. Unfortunately, I don't have such
    latitude in the MD. But I agree that a philosophy "should be presented so
    as to be understood" by anyone with the intelligence to search for truth.

    > Certainly Pirsig took pains to present his metaphysics that way. He never
    > wrote anybody off as being "unsophisticated" (a most admirable trait
    > IMO), not that I am accusing you of doing so...

    Yes, despite the reservations I have concerning his thesis, I think Pirsig
    is an excellent writer with admirable communications skills. But then, of
    course, he was an English professor. I, on the other hand, lack academic
    accreditation in either English or Philosophy -- and I never studied
    Anthropology!

    > My appeal to you is to translate phrases like "It introduces an
    > anthropocentric perspective of reality based on the autonomy
    > of man as the free agent and choicemaker in a deteministic universe"
    > to something like, "In my philosophy, man is unique in having
    > free will" or simply "Man is the measure" -- if that indeed is what
    > you mean.

    If you include the point that Essentialism is anthropocentric, that is
    indeed what I mean. "Man is the measure" is a neat metaphor, but doesn't
    quite do it for me.

    > Have you the patience to take me by the hand and go with me little by
    > little, step by step? I hope so.

    If you have the patience, I have the time. Where do you want to start?

    Let me say in closing that the single, most important concept I'm trying to
    get across to all of you is that some form of Awareness is the basis of all
    reality, including its essential source. To me, awareness encompasses
    organic sensibility, a perspective of otherness, memory, and (in man)
    self-consciousness, intellectual capacity, free will, and a psycho-emotional
    response to the value of Essence.

    Quality or Value may imply awareness, but it doesn't embody it. I think
    Essence can and does. That's why I've called Essentialism not only a
    "valuistic perspective" of reality but a "subjective approach" to
    understanding it..

    Thanks for your willingness and patience, Platt.

    Essentially yours,
    Ham

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 09 2005 - 01:57:23 BST