Re: MD Consciousness/MOQ, definition of

From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 09 2005 - 08:48:11 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Individuals and Collectives"

    Ham said of Platt,
    "Behind that facade of polite naiveté is an urge to shoot ..."

    Well put.
    Ian

    On 9/9/05, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > Hello Gav --
    >
    > You've posted a couple of notes referring to my discussion with Platt that
    > were not specifically addressed me. So I'm not sure if you're seeking my
    > response or simply stating the MoQ position.
    >
    > In your previous post you said:
    >
    >
    > > i dont see how this is different to the MOQ.
    > > see below for comments
    > >
    > > > The "discrete particulars" of existential otherness,
    > > > like the finite
    > > > "no-things" that experience them, are transitory
    > > > phenomena that have meaning
    > > > only in terms of relative or conditional value. As
    > > > no-things, we can't be
    > > > the source of that value; we can only reflect upon
    > > > it and respond to it as
    > > > free agents.
    > >
    > > man is the measure of all things
    >
    > I was pleased to learn that my philosophy of Essence had something in common
    > with Pirsig's MoQ, and Platt liked the aphorism "Man is the measure of all
    > things".
    >
    > Since then your opinion seems to have changed:
    >
    > > i disagree. if consciousness is universal a la
    > > buddhism (you thing buddhism is wrong too?) then
    > > experience is universal.
    >
    > Please understand that I am outlining my own philosophy here, making no
    > attempt to fit it to the MoQ, Buddhism, or any other philosophy. Most of
    > the MDers have been around this issue with me before and don't want to
    > discuss it any more. My personal opinion is that Pirsig needed to make his
    > Quality concept fill the gap left when he rejected theism; that is, he
    > needed a primary source to replace God as the teleological force that moves
    > the cosmos toward "betterness". His solution was to stretch Quality far
    > beyond its common definition, positing it as "the primary empirical reality
    > of the world" and infusing it with a universal consciousness, yet declining
    > to call it the primary source. I'm on record as stating that I consider
    > this a mistake.
    >
    > I outlined my concept of Value to Platt as follows:
    >
    > > My theory is that Value is an experiential manifestation of
    > > the Essence which is its source. In the life-experience each
    > > of us identifies with a unique configuration of values that
    > > relate to these particulars.
    >
    > You state:
    > > each of us *is* a unique configuration of values
    >
    > Essentially, that is correct. Which is why I've said that Value is the
    > essence of man's reality.
    >
    > > everything is value: value returns to Value
    >
    > That's a bit simplistic. Essence has value only to what is not Essence;
    > i.e., the self-conscious individual. (If you read my thesis, you'll observe
    > that I've followed in the tradition of Eckhart and Sartre in defining the
    > self as a "negate".) This, incidentally, is what troubled Platt.
    >
    > I also said:
    >
    > > I think this valuistic philosophy goes farther than
    > > the MoQ in satisfying the individual's need for a
    > > non-theological belief system. There are several
    > > reasons why I believe this to be a "sensible" thesis:
    >
    > You ask:
    > > can you explain how it goes farther?
    >
    > I'll return the question. Can you explain how Pirsig's philosophy answers
    > any of the criteria that I cited for Essentialism?
    >
    > > 1) It is supported in various ways by visionaries
    > > such as Eckhart, Plotinus, and Nicholas of Cusa;
    > > by philosophers like Schopenhauer, Heidegger,
    > > Hegel, William James, and Allen Watts;
    > > and by more recent thinkers, including J.A. Wheeler,
    > > Donald Hoffman, and Phillip Johnson.
    > >
    > > 2) It offers a plausible ontology to account for the
    > > the creation of a differentiated evolutionary world
    > > by an absolute immutable source.
    > >
    > > 3) It introduces an anthropocentric perspective of
    > > reality based on the autonomy of man as the free
    > > agent and choicemaker in a deterministic universe.
    > >
    > > 4) It proves that Essence cannot be indigenous to
    > > individuality and relational beingness, and it vindicates
    > > the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth as consistent
    > > with the principle of Individual Freedom.
    > >
    > > 5) It accommodates the spirituality of religion but
    > > not the theological dogma, positing Value as the
    > > essence of man and the inextricable link to his
    > > creator.
    >
    > You insist, although admitting that it's questionable:
    > > value is the creator.
    > > this is actually a big Q i reckon, is it a problem to
    > > conflate a creator with the big Q?
    >
    > Yes, I think it is. I think it is illogical for anyone to assume that a
    > judgmental reaction to something experienced (by a sensible subject) can be
    > the creator of the universe.
    >
    > > okay on one hand yes, cos you are limiting the
    > > unlimited, differentiating the undifferentiated,
    > > making the dynamic static.
    > > but if consciousness is the mode of existence of
    > > quality then perhaps it is helpful to think of one big
    > > unified consciousness, of which we are all a 'reduced'
    > > (or regulated) version of. is this a step towards a
    > > creator?hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    >
    > There is no "one big Consciousness". We've gone around this before, too.
    > The very design of existence is to individuate (isolate) the "evaluator" as
    > an autonomous agent. Man is as immutably individuated as Essence is
    > immutably absolute.
    >
    > May I suggest that you read my thesis www.essentialism.net, and then come
    > back to me with your questions or criticisms?
    >
    > Nice meeting you, Gav
    > 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
    >
    >

    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 - 08:58:51 BST