Hi Ham 22 Jan. you wrote:
> 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. Sorry if I don't meet your high standards. However (see my reply to Mel in the "Mind/Matter paradox" thread) it IS possible to understand how Newton's Physics dissolved Greek Physics' paradoxes and - likewise - it's possible to see how the MOQ dissolves SOM's paradoxes from ITS premises without any need to be a believer. But to my knowledge you have never hinted to your Essentialism being a result of any frustration with SOM's inconsistencies (paradoxes) much less it having any solution to them. So I just wondered. > 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. Saying that "entities or events are passing appearances of finite or reduced sensibility" is a bit easy, but let it wait. Bo before: > > 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. My drinking is moderate ;-). SOM his nemesis? If you mean its paradoxes and inconsistencies he claims that the MOQ resolves. Yes. > 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. Your "Essence" seems to be equal to Pirsig's "Quality", (your) primary division Essence/Sensibility, and this (sensibility) includes the subject/object pair. Again very like ZAMM's first "moq" where Quality's first offshoot were subjects and objects. Don't you see? > You exist in the world as a "being-aware". Yes, at the intellectual level this is self-evident, but as said you don't find a trace about it in old (pre-intellect) texts > The contingencies of your existence are value-sensibility (proprietary > awareness) and objectivized being (actualized value). You need not deliver these perfunctory "value" for my sake, in my opinion the value of the MOQ is the Dynamic/Static division and the static levels. > Neither contingency can exist without the other. In the MOQ the only "pair" level is intellect (S/O) and you are right neither exists without the other. It's an "aggregate" I call. > 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.) As said, from intellect seen this is obvious, but I repeat that you don't find much such talk in the Old Testament or Homer's "Iliad" Nothing about "being-aware is unique". only about Sound and Fury. > 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. Could you "draw" a verbal diagram of "Essentialism". I spoke about a "diagram fallacy" in ZAMM resulting from Quality being left unscathed after the first split. I hope you don't commit the same error, but understand that once you have postulated an Essence/Sensibility split you have a dualism on your hands. Bo 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/
