SA [Anthony mentioned]-- I like your title, but what is the paradox? Now that Ant has picked up on your complaint, I wish one of you would explain what is paradoxical about my criticism.
[Ham previously]: > While I might be accused of "inventing" Essence, it > is metaphysically fundamental in a way that quality can never be. [SA]: > Oh... more fundamental, maybe Ham will tell us > why. Notice Ham says he is being "accused of > 'inventing' Essence". He is being "accussed", and Ham > implies he disagrees with this accussment. So Ham's > thesis is NOT Ham's thesis after all. So Ham, who's > thesis is it? Read my statement again. I said I MIGHT be accused of "inventing" Essence, not that I HAD been. This rounds out my earlier statement that I do not use definitions "to explain something away". What have I said that leads you to suspect that Essentialism is not my thesis? If you've located another author espousing this thesis, I should know. I've been searching for such a source for a long time. [Ham previously]" > But, then, Mr. Pirsig does not wish to be "trapped" > by metaphysical definitions. [SA]: > Oh... and yet Essence is incomprehensible. We > could never have the full understanding of Essence. > We can only "value" essence, but this "value" is not > completely Essence. Sounds like Essence metaphysics > that Ham talks about doesn't want to be "trapped" by > metaphysical definitions. The whole argument as to > how Essence negations itself is a long, long lost > unknown story, too. I think you're aware that when Pirsig was questioned about his metaphysics, he asserted something to the effect that metaphysics is definition, and to define a word like Quality is to destroy the concept. That's not playing according to Hoyle for a philosopher; it's what we call "weaseling out". I admit that Essence is indescribable in relational terms, but the concept is definable. I define it in my Glossary thusly: "Essence -- The ultimate, unconditional, negational Source and/or "whatness" of reality." Essence is fundamental, because nothing can come from nothingness. Quality is not fundamental because it arises from the relation of subject to object -- the created dichotomy which Mr. Pirsig "explains away".. [SA]: > These were all philosophical criticisms. But how > Ham makes the argument that Essence is better than > the MOQ isn't clearly defined and delineated above. I've made the argument in previous discussions. Value and Quality are esthetic psycho-emotional responses of the individual to experience. Experience is a subject/object dichotomy. Therefore, a philosophy that doesn't acknowledge SO can only explain Quality or Value by defining it as something that is not evident to the subject. (In other words, by redefining it as primary to existence, which it is not.) Moreover, if Value were not sensible, we would not be capable of smelling the flowers or making moral decisions, which is (or at least should be) Pirsig's moral thrust. Enjoy your nature walk, 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
