Hi Platt --
I've been thinking about what you said, Ham. First, about "continuum." Pirsig says he means by continuum simply "that it goes on and on forever."
Glad you're thinking, but just so you understand, Essence does not "go", it just IS. It's not "dynamic" in the DQ sense. A continuum, as I understand it, is an absolute extension without distinction. Webster's says its "distinction of content can be affirmed only by reference to something else", such as numbers, for example. In fact, "continuum" is really the wrong term for a dynamic process or a system in transition, such as biological evolution. This is one of several quarrels I have with Pirsig's terminology. Most of the time, when it concerns "patterns", he's describing Quality dynamically while calling it "static". As a consequence, I have no real conception of how he views DQ. Is it the "whole" of reality, the essence of Nature, or the transcendent source of both?
But, that's not why I'm writing. The question I have for you is: "Is Essence immanent in the world as well as transcendent?" If it is, doesn't that mean it is immanent in you and I and everybody else? I suspect the answer to both is, "Yes."
That's a great question, Platt. I like what "immanent" implies, and inasmuch as Essence is the only true Reality, it is most certainly the source (i.e., potentiality) of everything everywhere. The caveat here, though, is that "every-" presupposes "more than one", and Essence is absolute in its oneness. In other words, there is no division or difference in Essence. Now, I'm aware that a differentiated world is inconsistent with a unified source, and that the metaphysics of creation defies common logic. Indeed, this is the paradox that has occupied most of my time to resolve.
Transcendence means only "extending beyond the limits of ordinary experience." It's a handy word for ministers and poets to allude to "a Creator", but it's not definitive enough for philosophers. For, if "difference' is antithetical to the primary source (Essence), it cannot be essential. Which means that Essence is not "immanent" in differentiated beingness.
If so, and if as you say in your book on page 79 that Essence is "not something different from its absolute Self or its absolute Value," then perhaps -- just perhaps -- the difference between your philosophy and Pirsig's is not so wide after all. For just as Pirsig says "Quality has Lila" we possibly can say, "Essence has Lila." Or am I just whistling Dixie?
I find it of more than passing interest that Pirsig did not say "Quality IS Lila", which would have made Quality imminant to Lila. (But, maybe he was simply waxing poetic.) On the other hand, I CAN say "Value is immanent to Lila", because I have an out that Mr. Pirsig did not avail himself of -- Absolute Essence. Value is a relative aspect of Essence realizable only by the differentiated agent. A précis of my hypothesis for the actualization of difference appears earlier in the book under "The Value of Nothingness", Chptr. 4, pps. 67-71.
Briefly, Difference arises as a "negation" of Essence, dividing Sensibility (the "negate") from an apparent Otherness (the "essent"). The essent represents Value to the negate which is realized differentially when the negate becomes an individuated "being-aware". This realization occurs through experience which "objectivizes" Value as the phenomenal reality we call existence. Neither the negate (self) nor its experienced objects are "essential realities". Only the Value is real, and we perceive it only relationally.
As to your question, "is Essence immanent in you and me?", I would have to equivocate and say it is immanent as differentiated Value. While that may disappoint you, keep in mind that Value is also our vital link to Essence. If I have you thoroughly confused, let me offer a simple analogy.
Did you ever drop a silver Christmas ball from the tree and watch it break into many slivers on the floor? Each of those shell-like fragments will mirror the lighted tree standing above it. You and I are broken fragments from the tree of Essence mirroring the value of our source. What we reflect of Essence differentially, relationally and conditionally, is what we ARE (absolutely) in Essence.
Hmmn ... that's not a bad analogy, and I just made it up! (Maybe I should have followed RMP's example and explained my thesis in metaphors ;-). Anyway, I hope it clears away some of the confusion and restores your confidence in Value not only as a synonym for Quality but as the transcendent aspect of Absolute Reality.
I'm indebted to you, Platt. You've provided an opportunity for me to address a metaphysical issue of profound significance. I'll defer to your judgment as to whether I've diminished the gap between Essentialism and the MoQ.
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/
