On Wednesday 7 May 2008 11:10 PM Ham writes to Joe: [Ham} I don't understand the "noose around your neck." Is it the SOM perpective? And to what approach are you "tilting"? We all lean toward a new view of reality, because none of us knows what it is and we hope in vain that some authority can tell us. I see this quandary as built into the existential scheme. The truth of reality is left as a riddle to man. Hi Ham and All, [Joe] When I read a posting I read it through very quickly to get a flavor! When I read ³transcend experiential existence² I felt a noose around my neck, so that I could die to experience what you were posting. I use tilting for "getting up in the morning". [Ham] I, too, am a senior citizen, having lived through WWII, served in the Korean War, majored in biology and chemistry, studied music, and read Plato, the Christians, and Sartre's Existentialism on my own. It was Sartre, not Aquinas, Augustine or Tillich, who finally convinced me that Existentialism was wrong. Existence does NOT precede Essence, and the notion that it does is the approach of Science and the humanities, as well as the avant-garde philosophies of our materialistic age. Nor does reducing subject/object existence to a monism, which Pirsig has attempted with his Quality thesis, reverse the existential premise. Existence cannot be primary to Essence because, as Parmenides discerned, something cannot come from nothing. [Joe] Your words are musical and I appreciate them. ³Existence cannot be primary to Essence because, as Parmenides discerned, something cannot come from nothing.² When you define away ³existence² as nothing, you are subject to the comment: ³Says you!². Your appeal to Parmenides as your source may be a mis-application of ³something from nothing². The undefined and the defined are metaphysically real in Pirsig¹s vision. The abstraction necessary for SOM are not true words. [Ham] My philosophy is founded on Essence as the primary source. The Achilles heel in my hypothesis is that, unlike quality or value, Essence cannot be experienced or empirically validated. It is a logical proposition that defies description. It requires intuitive insight to conceptualize and a "leap of faith" to acknowledge. Nonetheless, it is the single, most fundamental reality for anyone who believes that existence did not occur as a cosmic accident or by way of some chaos probability. I am a devout believer -- not in a Divine Being or a Supreme Good, but in the absolute immutable source of all difference.
[Joe] Metaphysics is not about explanation. In Aquinas¹ metaphysics he allowed only four words: One, Thing, Good, True. Pirsig allows two: DQ and SQ! Physics does the explaining mainly through mathematics, which uses a lot of words. In Pirsig¹s vision undefined reality DQ is validated. It is not surprising that some people on the MOQ can¹t hear your music. [Ham] OK, "why" and "how" are two sides of the same metaphysical question: What explains this phenomenon that we call Existence? We know it only experientially -- as awareness of its being. There is no evidence, save for our intellection, that being exists in the absence of awareness. Yet human progress, indeed civilization itself, seems to hang on the precept of a structured continuum from which man emerges, relates to his peers, acquires knowledge, creates new things, and eventually makes his exit. We are all habituated to this perspective of reality. The "universality" of objective existence serves our pragmatic purposes, but it does not lead to metaphysical understanding. For that we need to profoundly revise our way of thinking about reality. [Joe] No! ³Why² and ³how² in metaphysics ask different questions which cannot be answered about DQ. ³Why² and ³how² are questions of physics. ³What is existence? Order!² is a more valuable question and answer than: ³What is essence? Manifestation!² Existence is not a subset of essence! Essence is determined in an order of existence, and it is a moral universe. [Ham] No, I am a philosopher, Joe--a literalist. Too much of what passes for philosophy these days amounts to poetry. It has value as illiteration and metaphor, and sometimes as a practical guide to social interaction. Whatever works? Are you really content with pragmatism? Why do you disparage value sensibility? Pirsig didn't. He realized that only a valuistic ontology could get us beyond the practicality of subject/object existence. My philosophy of Essence simply goes the extra step by positing a primary source, that without which nothing can exist. [Joe] An ³unknowable primary source² is more acknowledgable from the point of view of ³existence² than ³essence². ³Essence² cannot be primary when there is no existence. Existence, however, is a law unto itself that I know nothing about. I can¹t even conceive it. ³I am that I am!² Nonsense! I still admire your poetry! Joe On 5/7/08 11:20 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Joe -- > > > >> As a member of the older generation I have experienced >> a World War, a Catholic monastery, a soup line in New York >> at The Catholic Worker, non-violent resistance to segregation >> in the South, by the time I was 33, marriage and family to now. >> I should be so jaded. Yet, Ham, I am still tilting at an >> approach to viewing reality. "Moral" is not what is favorable >> to mankind. I think it is foolish to try to "transcend experiential >> existence." I have an image of a noose around my neck. >> After studying Aquinas, Aristotle, etc I think it is foolish to >> leave myself open to a criticism that I am just speaking >> subjectively. I agree with Pirsig¹s assessment of SOM. > > I don't understand the "noose around your neck." Is it the SOM perpective? > And to what approach are you "tilting"? We all lean toward a new view of > reality, because none of us knows what it is and we hope in vain that some > authority can tell us. I see this quandary as built into the existential > scheme. The truth of reality is left as a riddle to man. > > I, too, am a senior citizen, having lived through WWII, served in the Korean > War, majored in biology and chemistry, studied music, and read Plato, the > Christians, and Sartre's Existentialism on my own. It was Sartre, not > Aquinas, Augustine or Tillich, who finally convinced me that Existentialism > was wrong. Existence does NOT precede Essence, and the notion that it does > is the approach of Science and the humanities, as well as the avant-garde > philosophies of our materialistic age. Nor does reducing subject/object > existence to a monism, which Pirsig has attempted with his Quality thesis, > reverse the existential premise. Existence cannot be primary to Essence > because, as Parmenides discerned, something cannot come from nothing. > > My philosophy is founded on Essence as the primary source. The Achilles > heel in my hypothesis is that, unlike quality or value, Essence cannot be > experienced or empirically validated. It is a logical proposition that > defies description. It requires intuitive insight to conceptualize and a > "leap of faith" to acknowledge. Nonetheless, it is the single, most > fundamental reality for anyone who believes that existence did not occur as > a cosmic accident or by way of some chaos probability. I am a devout > believer -- not in a Divine Being or a Supreme Good, but in the absolute > immutable source of all difference. > >> I would rephrase: "If man is to become a moral creature, >> he must understand why he exists and what his role in existence >> is" to "If a man is to become a moral creature he must >> understand how he exists, and how he can become more." > > OK, "why" and "how" are two sides of the same metaphysical question: What > explains this phenomenon that we call Existence? We know it only > experientially -- as awareness of its being. There is no evidence, save for > our intellection, that being exists in the absence of awareness. Yet human > progress, indeed civilization itself, seems to hang on the precept of a > structured continuum from which man emerges, relates to his peers, acquires > knowledge, creates new things, and eventually makes his exit. We are all > habituated to this perspective of reality. The "universality" of objective > existence serves our pragmatic purposes, but it does not lead to > metaphysical understanding. For that we need to profoundly revise our way > of thinking about reality. > >> "Euphemisms, metaphors, analogies, and paradigms >> all have their place in philosophical discourse." I agree. >> As for sensing value? Whatever works! >> As for the rest of the paragraph, Ham, you are a poet! > > No, I am a philosopher, Joe--a literalist. Too much of what passes for > philosophy these days amounts to poetry. It has value as illiteration and > metaphor, and sometimes as a practical guide to social interaction. > Whatever works? Are you really content with pragmatism? Why do you > disparage value sensibility? Pirsig didn't. He realized that only a > valuistic ontology could get us beyond the practicality of subject/object > existence. My philosophy of Essence simply goes the extra step by positing > a primary source, that without which nothing can exist. > > 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/ 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/
