Greetings, Joe --
I read your post and I was impressed! I feel I understand
a lot of what you say. As far as ³explanatory value² goes
I feel it is more logical to examine existence rather than essence.
You have always been my most likely convert to Essentialism. But, you are
also a "numbers man", and I confess I'm not comfortable constructing an
ontology by the numbers.
From a metaphysical examination of existence, evolution is exposed.
Change 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, is a metaphysical concept most
clearly explored in an examination of orders in existence, evolution,
rather than by an examination of the individuality of essence which
can admit no 0 point.
If mathematics is essential there is only 1 and everything else is
addition.
Existence in mathematical terms is 0,1. Existence in knowing essential
terms is 1 + 1 the knower and the known, which in an absolute must be
denied. I do not accept that I am at the level of an absolute, I only
think
I am.
For essential purposes mathematics is useless. The primacy of
mathematics in metaphysical thought today leads to an error in judgment
which can only be resolved by an evolutionary study of existential
reality,
e.g. Pirsig.
I think that's right. But an evolutionary study of existential reality is
not metaphysics.
Aristotle proposed a mathematical structure for the perception of reality,
S/O, 1/2/1. He suggested an intentional existence for the mind and a
real existence for the body 2. For Aristotle mind 1 and body 1 exist
differently but manifest in 1 person. The manifestation of 2 as 1 is the
error in the definition by Aristotle of the essence of man. Change has to
be according to mathematical logic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, evolution
not
to essential logic 2 (body and mind) = 1 man.
The number 2 (duality) is the result of 1 and not-one (0). Not by addition
or subtraction but by negation. Nothingness premeates all existence by
dividing Self from Other and actualizing "difference". But there can be no
nothingness in Essence which Eckhart described as absolute 'IS-ness'.
Nothingness is the negation of Essence which creates "otherness".
Sensibility needs this otherness to realize Value.
Evolution is outside mathematics with a metaphysics that states
that 1 and 1 can be 1. Evolution is not revealed in addition!
The first thought of procreation was that a small homunculus was
transferred from the man into the woman and grew until birth.
Evolution acknowledges a change of existence. The same material
can be found in differing evolutionary orders.
Pirsig denies intentional existence. He accepts a direct experience
of evolutionary levels. Instead of a mathematical logic in the perception
of change, Pirsig proposes an evolutionary logic for Quality DQ/SQ.
DQ is undefined and cannot become a term in a mathematical structure
of reality, but it is not 0.
I see no reason why DQ cannot be defined. If Cusanus can define God and
Descartes and James can define the self, why can't Pirsig define DQ? I
think his excuse has more to do with a fear of being called a theist than
with numbers and logic.
Pirsig denies the intentional/real structure of existence required for a
body/mind distinction. Existence defines reality. Pirsig sees a hierarchy
as an evolutionary order in existence. Existence comes in different
flavors, evolution. The metaphysics of Aristotle¹s SOM is discredited.
The logic of mathematics can only be metaphorical in a description of
evolutionary reality. It can accept an evolution in existence by
acknowledging the metaphorical nature of mathematics between each level.
Why do you place so much emphasis on numbers when, as you admit, it limits
one's understanding of metaphysics? We live in a differentiated universe
whose objects and attributes can be numbered. But numbers have no more
magic or power to express an absolute source than words.
Bo has gone to great lengths to show that the logic of the MOQ
has an inner consistency by enfolding the logic of DQ/SQ into
evolution to an intellectual level SOL from the social level of
consciousness.
I would not venture to describe or defend Bo's metaphysics. As you can see,
I have enough trouble trying to articulate my own.
But thanks for your expression of confidence, Joe.
--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/
