Good evening, Mark --
I'm not sure of the wisdom, the attempt is one of reconciliation. As humans, that which we envision has its roots beneath our intellect, some kind of perennial thing maybe. Perhaps the best truth is a synthesis, searching for that fundament. I will work on your Value being my Quality, to see if I understand you better.
I would assume that Truth, even if we knew it, would be inexpressible. Absolute Truth is like absolute Value. There is but one Absolute, and we can't express it as Value or Truth. We can only realize its differentiated attributes.
As I understand the essents you present, this may be akin to static quality. That is the shapes with meaning that we envision. For defined shapes to exist, there must be something separating them. Perhaps this is Value. We differentiate in a way that makes some essents better than others. The way we differentiate creates categories which cannot be compared to each other (rocks and love for example). Although overriding categories can result in such comparison sometimes. It is this propensity for a relational context that can be formulated as Quality. We have engrained in our interaction with the essents some fundamental attribute which in the end is no different from the observed essents. Matter interacting with matter as it were. One could perhaps say that this interaction is Quality. I choose that word, because it is what creates meaning for me. Without Quality, things would be meaningless.
Would you have chosen that word had you not familiarized yourself with the MoQ?
There is nothing "static" about the quality (value) we experience as essents. As I mentioned before, it is the dynamic nature of human sensibility that enables us to objectify Value. 'Essent-value' is experiential; that is, it's the incrementally perceived value of essents evolving and developing over time. What is "ingrained" in us is value-sensibility (what Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience"). Except that each and every experience is perceived to have its own value relative to everything else. Rather than "matter interacting with matter," it's Essential Value differentiated by experience to create finite relational 'beingness' (essents).
[Ham, previously]:
Understanding, recognition, comprehension, interpretation, evaluation, and analysis are . . . all intellectual functions. The critical point, however, is that conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which it functions are proprietary to the individual self, an epistemology the Pirsigians refuse to acknowledge.
[Mark]:
Yes, I suppose intellect could be one part. I find it hard to separate it from the rest, so this is a semantic issue. I am fine with your differentiation with various forms of sensibility. We can certainly confine intellect to symbol manipulation for the purposes of communication. However, the intellectual level can encompass all of these forms you present. I also get caught up in what the individual self is, as you know, which may be an impediment to my understanding of your ontology.
The individual self is nothing but sensibility in want of Value. Proprietary selfness is a negation of Essence. That's why the term 'negate' is appropriate. Selfness is divided from Essence by nothingness, just as Sensibility is divided from Beingness by nothingness. The nothingness that separates all existents is the common denominator of the differentiated world. I don't know how to formulate this as an equation, except to say that Nothingness represents the primary negation whereby Sensibility is "excluded" from Essence to actualize existence.
[Skip to Mark]:
If you are pointing to ultimate ineffability we get stuck in a paradox. Our power of description grows as needed. At one point, the nature of the stars was ineffable. We have now created words to describe such in more complex ways. Not that we have really gotten anywhere fundamentally by doing so, except to create a larger understanding. It is this creation we are part of. Breaking things into components, relating components, predicting behavior, etc. It is all part of symbolism which is man's ability to shine like a sun. At every point we become stuck with the next ineffable.
Yes, as much as we try, it is not possible for man to comprehend reality holistically. But that's to man's benefit, because to do so would prevent him from realizing value from the relational perspective. By the same token, if man had access to absolute Truth, he would be denied the capacity to exercise the free choice necessary to become a moral creature. (This is the principle that Pirsig's "universal morality" misses.)
I think I work the same way as you. My intuition chooses what I want to read and add to my understanding. I can't explain it any other way. There is way too much to read, all of which could be meaningful. So I head off on a "chosen" path and work from there. I don't think I am quite where you are yet, I am still quite scattered, and ultimate meaning is still in progress. Perhaps the progress itself is all I can ask for. Might get bored otherwise.
Don't become discouraged, Mark. I have noted much progress in your understanding of Essence qua Quality. In fact, I've seen indications that you have begun to realize that Quality (Value) by itself cannot be the Absolute Source. Is my optimism unfounded, or is Essentialism actually beginning to make some sense?
Anyway, thanks for hanging in there with me. Cheers, 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/md/archives.html
