Re: MD Quality, subjectivity and the 4th level

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 03:31:28 GMT

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Maxwell's Silver Hammer or notes from the Bin"

    Michael --

    You and I got off to a bad start some time ago, but whatever our argument,
    it pales in the light of your new breakthrough with regard to subjectivity.
    I'm curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion. Was it by simply
    pouring over the ideas expressed here by Arlo, Ian, Mark, Case, David, et
    al, or was Barfield or some other source the triggering element?

    As you know, I've long been trying to persuade the MoQers that it's a
    mistake to dismiss subjectivity in their zeal to abolish SOM. The notion
    that intellect and intelligence occupy some esthetic domain independent of
    the thinking individual has been my major hangup with Pirsig's metaphysics.
    It not only defies common sense but is contrary to anything I've seen in
    classical philosophy. Nor do I believe that such a bizarre epistemology is
    necessary to support the Quality concept.

    Since you've asked for opinions, I'm in agreement that existence is
    fundamentally awareness of an 'other', the specific nature and values of
    which are proprietary to the cognizant self. I think we can agree that this
    is an empirical truth. The 'cosmic divide' relates insentient otherness to
    subjective consciousness by way of individual experience. As you pointed
    out, "the subject/object divide is fundamental to what we are."

    What remains to be known, from my perspective, is how you account for this
    fundamental division. In other words, is this duality your essential
    reality, or do you see it as derived from a primary (uncreated) source?
    That question is what led me to initiate the "Looking for the Primary
    Difference" thread which, now that Reinier has withdrawn from active
    participation, has been left hanging. Is this question of any interest to
    you, or are you content to focus right now on recruiting some support for
    subjectivity?

    I think you've taken a significant step toward correcting a misconception of
    the MoQ, and will be most interested in following your progress from here.

    Thanks, Mike.

    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 : Tue Nov 01 2005 - 10:13:04 GMT