On 12/14/09 6:22 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote;
Hi Ham and all,
I was trying to clear my thoughts. DQ/SQ undefined/defined is
not cynicism. So, of course the unqualified assertion between us
is DQ/SQ, the metaphysics of undefined-defined. My perceptions
are undefined in that they are my perceptions. Then, when I wish
to communicate with another I have to use defined concepts.
Pirsig rightly saw that the whole truth is not expressed in defined
concepts. Some real things are indefinable and known through
analogy and metaphor like evolution.
I would argue that "the whole truth" is never known, and some of the
so-called "truths" I've seen expressed in metaphor and analogy on this forum
are not known either. However, I'll let that pass, because it's now
apparent to me that your criticism centers on the response I gave to your
statement of 12/10:
[Joe, previously]:
In order to know [Essence] you have to define 'existence' and then
claim it is 'not essential to absolute Essence.'
[Ham]:
I do not have to define existence because it is defined by experience.
What you say in this post reveals a misunderstanding about my ontology that
needs to be addressed:
How can an experience define existence when Absolute Essence
is the ultimate reality that you believe in? Your belief in the ultimate
reality determines your definitions. Does Absolute Essence, the
ultimate reality, exist or is it beyond existence and only imaginary?
You are in a logical trap, Ham, when you deny existence to an
Absolute Essence, which is prior to existence. Existence is the
absolute reality and a definition of what exists is subject to an order
in existence and a belief in Absolute Essence is beyond logic since
it doesn¹t exist and is a matter of Faith.. You either accept
existence or you don¹t. That is claiming a lot of power for words.
Only in an acceptance of the undefined is such a statement possible,
and its an acceptance of an evolution in consciousness only to
higher emotional or higher intellectual levels in consciousness only
which is available to all but not necessary or preordained.
Pirsig saw clearly the undefined.
Joe, when I say existence is "defined by experience", I'm not talking about
verbal definitions. As the "cutting edge of reality" experience outlines,
circumscribes. delineates, profiles, sculpts out Value as finite being --
the objects and events of existence. Value is essential; being is
conditional. Existence is phenomenal (experiential); Essence is primary
(fundamental).
You are using "existence" to connote fundamental reality, whereas I am not.
So, when you ask, "how can experience define existence when Essence is the
ultimate reality?" you are assuming that Essence is an 'existent' which it
is not. You also assume that what does not exist must be "imaginary".
Based on these false assumptions you accuse me of falling into "a logical
trap", which is to posit an imaginary (i.e., "faith-based") source primary
to empirical existence.
Bear in mind that my philosophy of Essentialism posits two realities:
Differentiated Existence and Absolute Essence. The former is the actualized
"appearance" of reality; the latter is the potentiality and source of this
actualization. What I call Essence is no more an abstraction than Pirsig's
DQ, since either may be considered "undefined" and both are "transcendent"
realities. I know no rule of logic that disqualifies an undefined source or
ground of existence as invalid or imaginary. Do you?
Imho Existence is the ultimate reality which manifests as Essence in a
logical universe. In that way Calcium in the tooth of a sentient being
exists differently from the Calcium in a calcium mine. Evolution is
rightly
an order in existence. But, then He says, She says! Mathematics is
quite logical and it requires the existence of 1.
What is "manifested" is the appearance of beingness that we call existence.
What is Real is the source of this appearance. The source (or "cause") is
logically primary to the effect.
Here is the "logic" as I see it:
Mathematics (the ordered system of numbers) requires the "primacy" of 1.
Existence (the ordered system of differentiation) requires the primacy of
Essence.
Your Calcium analogy is based on the pluralistic "essences" of platonic
idealism which does not relate to my Absolute Essence. There are no
"essences" in Nature other than realized (objectivized) Value.
I'm not expecting you to agree with me, Joe. But since the conclusions you
were drawing were inconsistent with my ontology, I thought it advisable to
further clarify my metaphysical position. At least your complaints should
now relate directly to my concepts rather than to assumptions you've drawn
from statements out of context.
Thanks for helping me understand your thoughts more clearly.
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/
