[Ron says]: > I'm trying to bridge the gap in understanding between your concepts > and Pirsig's. I was aiming mostly at Marsha in explanation but also > wanted you to comment on my understanding of Essentialism. > How am I doing so far?
Not so well in interpreting my concepts; but then you've taken a challenge upon yourself that has defied everyone who has tried it, including me. In my view if the fundamentals don't agree, that gap is unbridgeable. [Ham, previously]: > Your use of "static" here confuses me, since I don't regard > subject/object relations as static, and I don't comprehend the meaning > of "interpolating into" them. ...You seem to be asserting that > "individual minds...establish an absolute source." I trust that you mean > establishes the CONCEPT of an absolute source. Individual perception > doesn't create the source; it creates the experience of phenomena. [Ron]: > That's what I meant, I was getting a little carried away by concepts and > not focusing on clear description in writing. I term static in the > MOQ sense of the word as encompassing subject/object relations as > to provide a frame of understanding for MOQer's. > > Ham sees the ultimate value, the value of the individual with this > source of perceived reality. This relationship is what is important > not so much the positing of a universal concept of how objective/ > static reality works empirically. [Ham]: > "Ultimate value" is the relation of the negate (individual self) to the > source (Essence). This value is not directly experienced but only > sensed, pre-intellectually. The physiological organism breaks value > down into differentiated sensations from which the intellect constructs > empirical reality (things and events that appear in space/time). [Ron]: > Thank you for cleaning up my meaning. > > Ham is more of a humanist where Pirsig is more of an empiricist. [Ham]: > That's your characterization, Ron. I'm not sure what a humanist is. > Webster's Collegiate defines Humanism as "devotion to the humanities: > literary culture." I would think that is more idiosyncratic of a > novelist and man of letters like Pirsig than a non-academic like myself. > As an anthropocentrist, I believe that the human individual is the free > agent of the universe. So perhaps "individualist" would be a more > appropriate term. [Ron]: > Perhaps it would, I was trying to convey that you seem (to me) to > focus on relationships in regard to the individual rather than an > empirical understanding as a whole. Your view IMO takes a more > personal approach. That's because Essentialism is oriented toward the individual. Experience begins and ends with the individual. So do ideas and values. We can reflect collectively on the concepts of an individual, but we can't develop a philosophy by consensus. As Ayn Rand said: ""There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. ...we can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. ...no man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred." [Ham]: > And kindly explain what you meant by the statement > "...individual minds perceiving a universal continuity establishes an > absolute source of perceptual reality." [Ron]: > Well I meant that the evidence for source lies in the continuity of > perceived objects. That object may mean and appear differently > to different individuals but the basic objective descriptive reference > is the same; i.e.. a blue ball. 20 out of 20 individuals will all > recognize > the object as being blue, round, and perhaps a ball. These 20 people > may differ on hue and shade of the ball or size or whether or not they > like the color blue or the shape or meaning. etc. But you are > certainly correct in pointing out that source is a concept. > > I'm trying to bring both concepts together, Essentialism and MOQ > in an effort to enrich understanding of both and perhaps break new ground. That is a noble aim, Ron, and I wish you success in this endeavor. I, too, sought to reconcile the basic differences, but have found that harping on the discrepancies is a more effective approach to discussion. It fires up controversy and stimulates the thought process. When an MoQer says "Look at it this way," he's paving over the differences rather than acknowledging them, and we end up with a vague, compromised version of each author's concept, leaving the problems unresolved. That's a variant of what Pirsig would call "philosophilology". Let me suggest two of the unresolved problems you have to deal with: 1. My concept of existence is based on the primacy of the individual, as you have noted. Differentiated reality is critical to my ontology, and individual awareness is the locus of existence. Pirsig sweeps away individuality by defining it as a pattern of a level of quality. His thrust is "overcoming duality"; mine is to demonstrate its necessity for meaning and purpose. 2. My concept of reality transcends existence. I see evolution and process as man's limited perception of an absolute reality which is the uncreated source of the actualized world. Pirsig bases his metaphysics and morality on the empirical world as it is experienced, but discounts the subject of the experience. The MoQ is a philosophy of biological and social evolution toward some vaguely defined intellectual ideal. Like the existentialist's "Being", Pirsig's "Quality" is posited as the fundamental reality. And it has little to do with the life-experience of the individual. If you can reconcile these fundamental differences, you may indeed "break new ground" in philosophy. Essentially yours, 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/
