[Ham]
But since you raise the question of terminology with your own MoQ
equivalents, I'll take this opportunity to correct your list as it
applies to Essentialism. My comments are enclosed in brackets.
[Ron formally]:
> DQ = essent
[Ham] [If DQ is the primary source, the essentialist equivalent
> would be ESSENCE.]
>[Ron]:
> subject/object (static) = being-aware
[Ham] [The relation of subjective
> awareness to objective beingness is anything but "static". It
> emerges, changes, grows, and assumes various identities. Definitely
> DYNAMIC.]
[Ron]
The phenomenal is static, you seem to be defining these terms in
absolutes DQ is what you would call
ESSENCE and is the prime motivator of a value sensible world in your
terms.
>[Ron]:
> Value = Value
[Ham] [Yes, but does Value = Quality, ie., the primary source?
> If so, Value does not define ESSENCE.]
[Ron]
right, value is a static/value sensible reality compared to the prime
motivator ESSENCE
which is undefineable source.
[Ron]
> Essentialism = realizing oneness through dichotomy
[Ham] [Realizing VALUE
> from the dichotomy, with the understanding that it is man's
> perspective of Essence (Oneness).]
{Ron]
same thing
>
[Ron]
> MOQ = realizing oneness through complex system theory Pointing out how
> rationalizing through
> dichotomy may leave out aspecs of reality.
[Ham] [No equivalent in
> Essentialism. No need for complex system theory, no "aspects" of
> finite reality are essential except for the value it represents.]
{Ron]
I must ask what good is it? how does Essentialism help me better than
going to church?
[Ron continues]:
> which is what this argument is about. You seem to be concerned with
> focus on source. Pirsig focuses on the phenomenal.
[Ham]
I focus on the source because the phenomenal is common knowledge. We
beat it to death. So does Science. Philosophy gives us a means of
getting beyond the "otherness" of differentiated reality. Why not avail
ourselves of this perspective?
[Ron]
Because we beat that to death up until the 16th century (along with
those who did'nt share the perspective)
Pirsig is addressing that very statement "common knowledge" and exactly
that sort of tact on observance.
"been there, done that" attitude. Everything is worthy of re-evaluation
and when you observe the common
with out preconception you begin to notice the obscure relative
complimentry factors that play on the
formulation of the decisions we make and the reality we percieve. In
your terms, Pirsig is saying
ESSENCE (DQ) or "Quality" is everything, ESSENCE pervades in everything
it is the prime mover
it manifests as the value sensible world self and other (subject object
metaphysics)static reality.
so looking over a particular aspect of it because of preconceptions is
unwise if you want to
really understand how it works together, and why you might be having
problems and looking at it
this way relationally might yield some better answers then immediate
cause and effect.
[Ron]
> Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to understand complex
> systems which is what reality is composed of.
[Ham]
Since we construct our reality from value, reality can be as complex as
the intellect makes it. Making reality complex would seem to be the
goal of the quantum physicists. If you think reality is "composed of
complex systems,"
you'd better check your MoQ Manual. Pirsig says it's composed of
Quality, "...the primary empirical reality".
{ron]
Yes, we equated Quality with ESSENCE wich is experience as value
sensibility..everything.
[Ron]
> Essentialism is great but how does it define source any better than
> Dynamic Quality? Any way I turn it I still have a hard time
> understanding how Essentialism furthers any of these concepts short of
> re-defining them.
[Ham]
Then your knowledge of Essentialism is superficial at best. You folks
are still debating about whether DQ is patterned or unpatterned, whether
it's energy or modality, whether it emerges from SQ or vice-versa, or
whether it may be simply a euphemism for goodness. Obviously, it hasn't
been defined very well, and its author refuses to define it. In my
philosophy, Essence is defined as "The ultimate, necessary,
unconditional, negational Source and/or 'whatness' of reality." I
submit that this is a fairly complete definition for something whose
nature is indescribable.
{Ron]
? remember, you get on Pirsig for this sort of thing
"The ultimate, necessary, unconditional, negational Source and/or
'whatness' of reality."
are you reading what you write? you're saying absolutely nothing. I mean
literally
"the ultimate, necessary, unconditional negational source" ? how does
this clear anything up?
"whatness of reality" I still do not see how this clarifies anything.
[Ron]
> If you could in some way basically list the advantages of Essentialism
> over MOQ then I think you'd win more of us.
[Ham]
I could supply a list, but it would raise more questions than answers.
Actually I've been asked to do this before, and it hasn't satisfied the
questionner.
{Ron]
Give me a chance, The proof of any good philosophy is through rigoris
scrutiny, if Essentialism
holds up then I would think you could expect a good turn out at the book
store.
(I'm looking forward to a signed copy)
[Ham]
In plain words, Essentialism is founded on a primary, uncreated source
whose potentiality is absolute. All knowledge, and all awareness, is
proprietary to the individual. Since meaning and purpose is to be found
in the relation of the proprietary self to the absolute source, life has
no meaning to the individual who does not acknowledge the source.
Because he is estranged from Essence, man is an autonomous creature
whose free choices are based on his value-sensibility rather than on
biological instinct.
[Ron]
These seem like an awful lot of assumptions
[Ham]
This makes him the free agent and choicemaker of his world. Experience
is "being aware of Value", which is to say, man makes Value aware as
Being. Being-aware is a dichotomy whose contingencies are inextricably
bound together by Value. By realizing the Value of our estranged
Essence, we incrementally "dissolve"
the dichotomy and approach the essential Oneness from which we are all
separated at birth.
{Ron]
And I argue this what Pirsig, Lao stu, Jesus and most wise minds
throughout history have arrived at.
[Ham]
This brief synopsis is not going to win any "converts" to Essentialism.
However, it does set forth those fundamental concepts which are missing
from the MoQ; namely, a primary source (creator),
[Ron]
DQ or just plain Quality which encompess both aspects.
[Ham]
the dichotomy of actualized existence (rejected by Pirsig as
"dualism"),
[Ron]
subject/object metaphysics not rejected simply made aware to the
observer.
using your words "By realizing the Value of our estranged Essence, we
incrementally "dissolve"
the dichotomy and approach the essential Oneness from which we are all
separated at birth."
what we call MOQ.
[Ham]
the significance of the individual (as opposed to the "collective")
[Ron]
the significance of the relational value of the individual to the
universe and vise versa.
[Ham]
value as man's relational link to Essence (rather than an esthetic
source of patterns and levels),
[Ron]
same, same your getting caught up in description, a model of this
relational value link.
[Ham]
and man's role in the universe (as compared to simply recognizing that
"some things are better than others").
[Ron]
what is mans role in the universe? ..historically when someone claimed
to know what
man's role in the universe was, it ended up rather badly (history of
religeon)
personally,I think the observance of evolutionary process is at least
some sort of observable grounds for basing a theory
[Ham]
For more elaboration on these concepts, you'll have to read my webpage
thesis at www.essentialism.net , at least until my book comes out.
Thanks for your questions and list of equivalent terms.
Regards,
Ham
{Ron]
Thanks for your time Ham and good luck on the book, Keep us posted on a
release date.
I hope you enjoyed our discussion, I have. I also hope you see the
simularities
or at least what I percieve as simularities.
best wishes
-Ron
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
