Hi again Tim and Mark --
First let me say I'm honored that you've taken the time to explore my
philosophy of Essence and have come up with thoughtful insights and
analogies by way of interpreting it.
I'd like to address Tim's questions in this post, as he's just read my
complete on-line thesis and has made several astute observations regarding
the ontology, one of which is mistaken in my opinion.
[Ham, previously to Mark]:
The greatest impediment I face is the anti-spiritual bias of a
society that is in rebellion against religion and confuses
Essence with theism.
[Tim]:
Is this the greatest impediment you face here in MD,
or is this your greatest impediment in greater society?
Anyway, I seem to have come to a different conclusion,
but...
It's certainly the mindset I most frequently encounter here, although I
suspect the aversion to anything tainted with spirituality or "the
supernatural" is an impediment I confront in contemporary society, as well.
[Ham]:
The critical point, however, is that conscious awareness
(sensibility) and the intellect by which it functions are
proprietary to the individual self, an epistemology Pirsigians
refuse to acknowledge.
[Tim]:
I think you could sell a lot of people on this idea, in the
greater society, even if you could not sell them on essentialism.
For my part, I do not see why essence is essential to this
conclusion.
[SNIP]
Ham, the problem I see for your thesis, here, in the MoQ,
is exactly this disposition of Mark's, and mine, that we prefer
an undefined fundament to one that is burdened by what
could be a false definition. The thing I see with your 'essence'
is that you do not keep it ill defined, but burden it with your
conceptions of 'oneness', and absolute, etc. For instance,
from your thesis:
"Here, then, is an original theory of creation that will support a
dynamic space/time system without violating the metaphysically
stipulated "uniform, unchanging and limitless" Source.”-- we are
not so happy to submit to a fundament that is 'uniform',
'unchanging' and 'limitless'. We prefer RMP's evasion of such
defining traits!
also, “But Essence is perfect Oneness, which means that it is
free of patterns or demarcations of any kind”
and, “from the Essential perspective there is no past or future..."
and, “creation is a timeless constant”...
Siuce it's your right to dismiss, or even reject, the primary source as you
see fit, I have no right to "object". I regard metaphysics as an attempt to
theorize reality as an all-encompassing system. Anything less is for me an
incomplete thesis. Certainly the source of creation is fundamental (the
"fundament") to Essentialism. To ignore it as a matter of "personal
preference" is tantamount to a physicist saying "I'm going to ignore the law
of the conservation of energy because I canot submit to it happily."
So, it seems we can get to: "The critical point . . .that
conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by which
it functions are proprietary to the individual self" without
(recognizing) a '..."uniform, unchanging, and limitless" Source
called 'essence'. I wonder if you could convince Marsha to
incorporate 'proprietary' into her definition of self? I think so:
'...interdependent, proprietary, impermanent..."
You see, this is another "impediment" to understanding by the Pirsigians.
The MoQ reduces selfness to one or more "interrelating patterns of Quality".
This is meaningless to me. If the self doesn't realize the Quality it is a
pattern of, where or what is the Quality? If Quality is the "operating
agent" of existence, what purpose do 'I' serve?
Epistemologically speaking, there is no such thing as unrealized quality or
value.
[Skipping Tim's remark to Mark]
The irrevocability of your belief in your cosmology comes through.
I hope you will consider revoking it! Or, at least opening up to
the possibility that 'essence' is not as you imagine it. Or, if it must
be so, we should be able to find some proof: perhaps a physics
will fall out. Or, if not, to hold to your understanding is an act of
faithe, to which I might suggest you admit up front. And it is not
just faithe regarding the aspects of 'oneness', but regarding the
implications upon death:
“Death is a cosmic event, merciful in its completeness, and capable
of redeeming Desire in the sense that (for want of a better analogy)
the "lover" and the "love object" are reunited in what must
approximate a divine consummation.”
I thought this Eckhartian language was an appropiate apotheosis with which
to tie up the loose ends and round out my thesis. Of course it's
euphemistic and "sentimental", as I indicated parenthetically; nonetheless,
I'm convinced that, as the individual's link to Essence, Value has a
reciprocal function that is "essential" to the overall ontology.
It's an "act of faith" only in the sense that it will never be proved by
empirical science; but why should it be? Do we have scientific proof of
proprietary awareness or the essential Source? Again, to "know" such
truths would preempt our role as the free agents of Value.
Anyway, that was a side point, the main point here is regarding
your ontogeny of differentiation; And this in relation to Mark's
comment about your - one - assumption. You have made more
than one, despite the word-play. The other!: nothingness.
From your thesis: “What Essence actualizes as an "other" is its
absolute antonym.” and: “As the antithetical essent, only
nothingness shares the absolute and undivided status of Essence.”
(Ham, keep in mind that I will propose that 'impossibility' fits the
bill - and, while you have said before that you do not recognize a
possible/impossible divide, I will show you that you do - I think)
Mark, I would suggest that you would understand Ham most
properly if you would consider his 'nothingness' as akin to
'Quality' (Quality as the source of DQ/SQ). What do you think Ham?
I don't like it, especially as Pirsig has equated Quality to Value. Value
is positive, "essential", and functionally dynamic in existence. It does
not "divide" -- it "affirms".
Only nothingness delineates and separates existents, just as the '/' bar
divides one by two in the fraction 1/2. Moreover, only nothingness can be
negated by Essence without impugning its absoluteness. All of existence is
differentiated by nothingness.
Being itself is defined by nothingness -- it's OUR nothingness that
actualizes finite being from Value. "Bad faithe", Tim. (Incidentally, why
the extra "e" on faith?)
I'm running too long, so will only quote your "better" conclusions to close
this out.
Ham is arguing that Quality cannot be the fundament, that essence
must be the fundament, and so there will be no cognate for 'essence'
within the MoQ.
Ham is arguing that there must be something which gives rise to
Quality, that RMP did not go back to the Source in postulating
Quality as the Source.
Ham,...I encourage you at least to open up to the possibility that
the absolute fundament can be eternal in potential, but finite in
actualization.
But I have, Tim! As you quoted (in part) above, I said . . .
"Cusa reasoned that if actuality did not exist, then nothing could actually
be. But the being of things and their relations is what we call existence.
Things appear; therefore actuality exists. Possibility and actuality are
co-dependent in existence but coincide in the non-contradictory Source —
ultimate reality in which opposites like 'positive/ negative' and
'being/nothing' are equivalent. If the possibility of contradictory
otherness is always present in Essence and becomes actualized when there is
an awareness to experience it, then it is this actualization that we call
existence."
So, for your benefit: Essence is Absolute Potentiality. Existence is the
actualization of
Value as 'essents'.
I'll get back to you shortly as to why Essence is needed for all of this.
Meanwhile, thanks to both of you for giving me so much of your time.
Seizing the Essence,
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
