On 12/15/09 4:40 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham,
I am sorry that I did not understand your ontology. Thank you for
explaining further.
IMHO Following the logic derived from Pirsig¹s description of
DQ/SQ, I would have to respectfully disagree with your argument
that existence is the appearance of beingness, an (ordered system
of differentiation) which requires the primacy of Essence.
IMHO Without existence essence is imaginary. Thus an imaginary
primacy rests in the existence of an abstracted essence discovered
through abstraction from the individual existent, which requires the
faculties of an imaginary mind. Essence is created in the imagination
rather than a created source of being. Realized Value is also an
abstraction of an imaginary image from existential individuality.
Again I am sorry if I am not stating your ontology correctly.
I was not aware that a "logic" could be derived from Pirsig's description of
DQ/SQ. But, however you arrived at these conclusions, they are illogical.
"Without existence essence is imaginary" presupposes that there is an
"imagination" where people do not exist. "An abstracted essence discovered
through abstraction" is a double fallacy, since Essence cannot be
abstracted, nor can an "individual existent". Also the Essence I've
posited is uncreated, so it cannot be "created in the imagination." (What I
think you mean is "hypothesized" which is not quite the same as "imagined".)
Finally, realized Value has nothing to do with "images", as it is an
immanent sensibility that is primary to experiential (objectivized)
constructs.
Rather than going through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate the
illogic of my ontology, I suggest that you consider the hypothesis
conceptually on its own merits, without the logic. Then, if it makes sense,
you can "derive the logic" from the concept, just as you did with Pirsig's
description. If it doesn't, you've still got the DQ/SQ as your fallback
position. After all, we can't live by logic alone. It's our philosophy
that serves as a guide to the life-experience.
Have a joyous Yuletide Season,
Ham
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/
