[Squonk]:
Hi Ham,
According to the moq DQ is integral to everything so it must be
integral to the individual life. I don't assume this reqires an arrow
of time, but it insists upon an arrow of value evolution.
I agree that time is a construct. The moq would say it is a pattern
of intellectual values i suppose.
I was a bit opaque in my response because I didn't want to burden you with
metaphysical details, particularly as my views differ from those of RMP.
While it is true that everything derives from Essence ("Ham's DQ"), this
doesn't mean that experienced "things" and the "selves" that experience them
are "integral" to Essence. In my view, only Value is integral to Essence,
whereas nothingness and selfness make up the difference between
being-in-the-world and the source of that being.
Since you're familiar with Heidegger and Sartre, you understand the meaning
of "dasein" as used by the existentialists. (Although Essentialism is
metaphysically opposed to existentialism, I admit to borrowing several of
their terms.) They were stuck, as I believe Pirsig is, by the precept
"existence precedes essence."
Existentialists do not allow themselves to entertain the concept of a
primary source beyond being. Pirsig has taken a stab at it, but Quality
(dynamic or otherwise) is only an experienced attribute of being, As a
result, the MoQ is all about existence and nothing about its uncreated
source. What distinguishes Essentialism as a metaphysical thesis is that it
transcends the "otherness" of being by positing Essence as the 'not-other'
source.
I get you. I encountered the objection that only agents can assign
value more than any other in formal study. The closest official release
for it is John Leslie's extreme axiarchism, which says the universe exists
because it is best that it does so, and this position is derived from
Plato.
An immediate problem i have with essence is that it is an intellectual
construct. It is a theory?
Isn't a theory also an intellectual construct? Plato may well have
attributed his "best that it does so" teleology to the gods. Pirsig tells
us that Quality accounts for a moral universe. Yet, neither philosophy
outlines an ontogeny for existence or a reason for its creation. I'm not
acquainted with Leslie's "axiarchism", but the absence of a plausible
ontology is probably what inspired Hegel and Heidegger to develop
existentialism around Being as its primary source. It remains the
predominant philosophy of postmodernism.
My only problem now is wishing to leave because of boredom.
There are only so many times i can read the same thing over and
over again (and allot of it has been repeated for the last 9 years)
before i begin to want to get back to music. For some reason,
i never become bored of that.
We apparently have music in common. I, too, have been wanting to get back
to it, but at my age the challenge of philosophy has assumed the higher
ground. I hate to admit that as a young man with little musical talent I
studied theory and composition. Now, as an old man with minimal training in
philosophy, I'm writing on metaphysics. Life takes odd turns, doesn't it?
But don't give up on philosophy, Squonk. Your thinking is fundamental, and
you're open to new ideas, both of which are assets to the philosopher. Ron
and Craig, among a few others here, are also intuitive free-thinkers,
although their concepts tend to be warped by the MoQ hierarchy.
Another problem looms for me: There doesn't seem to be much
before 'man' on this account.
That's because it is man who objectivizes value as an evolutionary
multiplistic system. Remember, I'm an anthropocentrist. Being in the world
is man's construct. The value-sensible individual is the locus of his
reality. Since what exists is no more than what is experienced, the
universe begins and ends with experience.
I see. I'm finding this a little tricky to see in my head.
I shall need to work on it.
You won't see it in your head. You'll conceptualize it. Philosophy is more
than words and logic. It's largely intuitive. For example...
I gave Platt a koan to ponder based on his assertion that "a universe is
better than no universe." I asked him to meditate on that statement until
he could justify it in a way that made sense to him. Heidegger and some
others have asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?" That's how I
got the insight for my philosophy of Essence. Why don't you try this
apprach as your "thought experiment 2"? You may be pleasantly surprised at
the results.
Incidentally, Platt hasn't gotten back to me. Maybe you will.
Good luck,
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/
