On Saturday 3 May 2008 1:49 AM Ham responds to Joe: Greetings, Joe -- > Essence or existence, which is the variable? IMO Existence > is layered in an evolutionary order, and essence follows > existence. Essence is only known in existential layers. > Hence the value of words and experience! You have a right to your opinion, of course. It's the ontology of existentialism (Hegel and Sartre) who postulated that "Existence precedes Essence". It's also the position of Pirsig's hated logical positivists and SOMists who believe that man is totally an evolutionary product of nature. MoQ's author posited Quality as his primary "essence", but since quality or value presupposes a sensible agent to appreciate it, it can't be primary to existence. Hi Ham and all, [Ham] [Joe] You have a right to your opinion, of course. Right back at you, Ham. [Ham] It's the ontology of existentialism (Hegel and Sartre) who postulated that "Existence precedes Essence". It's also the position of Pirsig's hated logical positivists and SOMists who believe that man is totally an evolutionary product of nature. MoQ's author posited Quality as his primary "essence", but since quality or value presupposes a sensible agent to appreciate it, it can't be primary to existence. [Joe] ³Sum quod Sum!² I don¹t think that was written by Hegel or Sartre. And, of course, Pirsig¹s hated logical positivists and SOMists and their evolutionary product of nature who have the same belief! Ham you do have a way with words! Who are you trying to convince? Pirsig¹s metaphysics is a DQ/SQ division of Quality. You read ³Quality² as essence. I read ³Quality² as the existential experience, like evolution, of a sensible agent. To me ³essence² (quotation marks are for emphasis in the place of underlining) is a manifestation (3 laws) in an evolution of order (7 laws). IMO The Existence of order is a higher priority in understanding than the individuality of a manifestation. [Joe] > What is Evolution? How can I write about the undefined? > I can¹t! I can only twist the meaning of words into "analogies" > or "metaphors" or "gestures" to have any chance of being > intelligible. I suspect mathematics has difficulties with analogies, > metaphors and gestures although ³quantum² seems to cross > some line. Yikes! "Evolution" is an "order" in existence? [Ham] I think you are exaggerating the difficulty. We can't describe the ineffable source, because attributes and parameters assume finite differentiation whereas Essence is absolute and undifferentiated. Yet, we can logically conceive of a principle that represents the coincidence of all difference. This is what Cusanus did to come up with his theory of the 'Not-other'. A century earlier, the Christian gnostic Eckhart had said: "The divine One is a negation of negations. Every creature contains a negation: one denies that it is the other. [Even] an angel denies that it is any other creature; but God contains the denial of denials: He is the One who denies of every other that he is anything except himself." [Joe] ³Essence is absolute and undifferentiated.² Those words are indefinable, yet the description means something to you, DQ. Only further discussion can approximate the understanding of how you are using those metaphors. The words have meaning only as metaphor, analogy, or gesture (mouth formation)! Many interpretations are assumed. Cusanus, Ekart, One, creature, negation, angel, God are not exactly defined words. They require further interpretation in their use. You appeal to logic ³the difference² to establish a principle ³that represents the coincidence of all difference.² I do not think I agree that all indefinable words mean the same thing. Analogy, metaphor, and gesture are not considered definable. [Ham] If we consider finitude as the otherness that manifests the Whole, then the Whole represents the Source of existence minus our valuistic sensibility of it. And if we apply the principle that nothingness divides and value unites, we might even realize the moral purpose of a free agent who brings value into existence as being. [Joe] I do not consider that a finite part manifests the whole except by analogy or metaphor DQ. I do not know how a non-existent whole can represent the Source of existence and then claim that metaphor and analogy and gesture are valued sensibly. Nonsense is nothingness. To divide by nonsense is a clearer analogy to a principle. You can't divide by 0. Fire and water, both values do not unite. I agree the moral purpose of freedom is valuable. [Joe] > "Evolution" is a blast! "Order" and "manifestation" are different. > IMO "Order" resides in undefined consciousness. DQ points > at undefined consciousness for order. "Manifestations" reside in > defined consciousness. SQ points at "defined" consciousness > for "manifestations" and "defined words" used in definitions. > Order/Manifestation. [Ham] (It's a shame you use so many quoted words and have no functional quotation marks to cite them.) But for me, dividing order from manifestation is just another way to compartmentalize existence which is itself an ordered manifestation. Since everything in existence is differentiated, what's the point of categorizing it into meaningless levels and patterns? The philosophical questions are: Where does it begin, what supports it, and why are we here? In the absence of a primary source, those questions remain unresolved. [Joe] My use of quotes was to indicate an analogy, metaphor, or gesture as I remarked earlier. It is easier than underlining. Order, ordered manifestation, existence, categorizing, meaningless, patterns, primary source, beginning, supporting, why, are metaphors, analogies, or gestures that require further interpretation and limitation. [Ham] Your musical scale analogy is one kind of relational scheme, but its significance still escapes me. And since I'm not especially interested in culture or evolution, I'll stop here. But thanks for giving me the benefit of your opinions, Joe.
Essentially yours, Ham [Joe] The musical scale is a twofold metaphor. It suggests a structure as well as an agent of shock (the change in values between certain notes) in the ordering of differing realities like solid matter, air, impressions etc.. Joe On 5/3/08 1:49 AM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings, Joe -- > > >> Essence or existence, which is the variable? IMO Existence >> is layered in an evolutionary order, and essence follows >> existence. Essence is only known in existential layers. >> Hence the value of words and experience! > > You have a right to your opinion, of course. It's the ontology of > existentialism (Hegel and Sartre) who postulated that "Existence precedes > Essence". It's also the position of Pirsig's hated logical positivists and > SOMists who believe that man is totally an evolutionary product of nature. > MoQ's author posited Quality as his primary "essence", but since quality or > value presupposes a sensible agent to appreciate it, it can't be primary to > existence. > >> What is Evolution? How can I write about the undefined? >> I can¹t! I can only twist the meaning of words into "analogies" >> or "metaphors" or "gestures" to have any chance of being >> intelligible. I suspect mathematics has difficulties with analogies, >> metaphors and gestures although ³quantum² seems to cross >> some line. Yikes! "Evolution" is an "order" in existence? > > I think you are exaggerating the difficulty. We can't describe the > ineffable source, because attributes and parameters assume finite > differentiation whereas Essence is absolute and undifferentiated. Yet, we > can logically conceive of a principle that represents the coincidence of all > difference. This is what Cusanus did to come up with his theory of the > 'Not-other'. A century earlier, the Christian gnostic Eckhart had said: > "The divine One is a negation of negations. Every creature contains a > negation: one denies that it is the other. [Even] an angel denies that it > is any other creature; but God contains the denial of denials: He is the One > who denies of every other that he is anything except himself." > > If we consider finitude as the otherness that manifests the Whole, then the > Whole represents the Source of existence minus our valuistic sensibility of > it. And if we apply the principle that nothingness divides and value > unites, we might even realize the moral purpose of a free agent who brings > value into existence as being. > >> "Evolution" is a blast! "Order" and "manifestation" are different. >> IMO "Order" resides in undefined consciousness. DQ points >> at undefined consciousness for order. "Manifestations" reside in >> defined consciousness. SQ points at "defined" consciousness >> for "manifestations" and "defined words" used in definitions. >> Order/Manifestation. > > (It's a shame you use so many quoted words and have no functional quotation > marks to cite them.) But for me, dividing order from manifestation is just > another way to compartmentalize existence which is itself an ordered > manifestation. Since everything in existence is differentiated, what's the > point of categorizing it into meaningless levels and patterns? The > philosophical questions are: Where does it begin, what supports it, and why > are we here? In the absence of a primary source, those questions remain > unresolved. > > Your musical scale analogy is one kind of relational scheme, but its > significance still escapes me. And since I'm not especially interested in > culture or evolution, I'll stop here. But thanks for giving me the benefit > of your opinions, Joe. > > 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/
