Hi Bo --
For my part I am only interested in causation because it's included in the "herd" of SOM-induced "platypis" (paradoxes) that the MOQ allegedly resolves. And of those I find the mind/matter paradox most paradoxical and I wonder if Essentialism offers some solution?
If this is your comment -- there's some confusion because you typed my greeting line above it -- I find it odd that, having dropped our previous discussion, you would want to explore Essentialism for a solution to the mind/matter paradox. Like the MoQ, which I'm told cannot be criticized by someone who doesn't accept Pirsig's concept of "holistic Quality", I find myself in much the same position. That is, you can't use a philosophy to explain causation if you don't accept its fundamental thesis.
My "holistic source" is absolute, which means that entities or events are passing appearances of finitely limited (or reduced) sensibility. As an essentialist, I believe that causation (i.e., cause-and-effect) is an intellectual precept derived from the temporal mode of experience. That's why I don't use it in my ontology, but refer to creation or "actualization" (in the present tense) instead. The actualized world of man's experience is infinitely differentiated. This suggests that Difference is the nature of existence, and that to "actualize" something is to differentiate it from Absolute Essence -- in other words, to make it an "other" in space/time reality.
You know what the paradox is? Mind is mind how far one pursues it and matter is matter, the twain never meet, yet matter (body) and mind interacts constantly. For instance I think about moving a finger and as long it's a thought nothing happens, but then I make up my mind and the thought materializes in a finger movement. It works the other way too, I take some chemical "stuff" (a drink) and my mind alters.
I don't know how much of that "chemical stuff" you've been drinking, but you're right that mind and matter, awareness and beingness, proprietary sensibility and its object are fundamentally different, albeit co-dependent in existence. This, again, is the primary duality which Pirsig has made his nemesis. Duality is the root of difference, and to reject or dismiss this principle renders ontology impotent. All differentiation and contrariety is derived from the primary division (negation) of Sensibility from Essence. That of course includes the subject/object contingency you've alluded to.
You exist in the world as a "being-aware". The contingencies of your existence are value-sensibility (proprietary awareness) and objectivized being (actualized value). Neither contingency can exist without the other. As a finite entity, your being-aware is unique to you. As such, you are a "provisional" existent, a negated "free agent" of the value which connects you to Essence. (You'll note I've said nothing about "intellect" in this ontology.)
If you wish to pursue this line of discussion, I'll be happy to accommodate you. But bear in mind that my entire philosophy is predicated on Absolute Essence. Without this fundamental base, the derived tenets and axioms lose their cogency and fall apart.
Anyway, thanks for the query Bo. 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/
