Hi Joe and David -- [Joe]: > The question I am asking is Which is more real ³existence² > or ³abstraction² involving ³intentional existence²? IMO Pirsig > answered that there is no intentional existence. Aristotle was > wrong. Intentional existence is not metaphysics, nor is potential > existence except, perhaps, to a designer. There is no mind > which abstracts essence from reality, there is only inner and > outer experience.
I'm still trying to understand your question, because it indicates a certain ambiguity in your present belief system. I suspect the problem may be more psychological then philosophical, since your term "abstraction" suggests an illusory or "less than real" reality, You use it in connection with "intentional existence", so I assume it is intended to define the relational world of finite objects. By "intentional" do you mean "designed", as in Intelligent Design? If so, then I would answer that this is the empirical reality which we all experience. Pirsig has called experiential reality S/O and SOM the philosophy that systemizes it. Although he posits DQ as his fundamental reality, he does not refer to it as the primary cause or source. In fact, there is no causal source named for existence other than Quality, nor does Pirsig distinguish existence from Reality per se. This, in my opinion, leaves the MoQ as an incomplete metaphysics. David has outlined a concept of reality which I find generally similar to my own. Since it's more in keeping with Pirsig's ontology, I'll point out the differences with Essentialism in the comments that follow it. [DM]: > My way of looking at our experience is that whilst our > outer experience is very open to many interpretations and is > very rich it is in some sense finite relative to the potential & > freedom that we seem to find in our inner and imaginative > experience. That's why mathematicians explore the possible > more than the actual. There is surely a sense in which as > agents and artists and makers that the potential is made > actual and moves from the inner to the outer sphere. > What other sense is there to creation, both human and natural. > Wonder at this is what gave us the idea of divinity. Is not a > true and perfect circle not a potential idea, a perfect idea, > essential to make sense of the actual, but is never truly found > or actualised? This is very well stated, with good examples, and I'm in agreement with all of the above. > Unlike Plato, of course, I think there is more to potential > than the perfect; the infinite contains everything, not just > the ideal, the anti-ideal too, and every form in-between, > but only potentially. The potential is also not in some other > realm, it is with it, it is entirely available in experience, if only > you have the time and inclination to fully explore it, but like > any journey you can't teleport around it, you have to work > at it. We are a thread that separates the finite and in-finite, > or SQ/DQ. Here is where I have some reservations, but they are metaphysical rather than empirical issues. (Let's not analyze Plato and Aristotle, since neither ontology is fully compatible with the MoQ or Essentialism.) I agree that there is more to Essence than potential, though I don't like the description "contains everything", which makes it pluralistic. Cusanus theorized a 'First Principle' that is the "coincidence of all contrariety," and I follow that theory because it facilitates a unified concept of Essence (Oneness) without having to describe it. If the potentiality of Essence is its negational power, then difference is actualized by the negation of Essence. As I see it, the primary difference is manifested in the separation of Sensibility and Otherness, which in finite existence translates to subjective awareness versus objective beingness. For me, this represents the S/O dichotomy that Pirsig seeks to avoid. I use the word "absolute" for Essence rather than "infinite" which connotes spacial dimensions. Also, I reject David's suggestion that "the potential is...entirely available in experience." We can sense the potential (of Essence) only as the Value of the self/other divide, and we experience a relational world by differentiating Value into objective phenomena. I'm impressed with David's metaphysical analysis, and hope that my comments help to clarify our differences without corrupting his ontology. It's refreshing to be able to discuss reality metaphysically without getting involved with levels and patterns. Thank you both for this opportunity. Regards, 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/
