On 1/27 David Morey asked: > Ham > > What does 'substance' mean to you?
I knew there had to be a logical reason behind this question, and I found it by consulting my dictionary. (Probably what you had expected me to do -- if not your true motive.) Yes, David, Webster's New Collegiate does cite "essence; essential nature" as synonyms for "substance". But, since you asked for my meaning, I'd go with Webster's third definition: "physical material from which something is made or which has discrete existence." But I also checked the Free Online Dictionary, and like both of their definitions: "a. That which has mass and occupies space; matter. b. A material of a particular kind or constitution." It isn't surprising that Aristotle didn't differentiate between "substance" and "essence", as they were the same to him; the substance of a thing WAS its essence. And Aristotelian ontology has carried over into scientific objectivism. But for the essentialist, there is only ONE Essence; and once something is delimited, identified and defined as "having discrete existence" [i.e., beingness], the most appropriate term is 'substance'. For the general mode of experiential "existence" I would probably tend to use 'matter' and 'beingness' synonomously. That's because I define existence as the experience of "that which occupies space" and occurs in time. Now may I return the question, and ask how a Pirsigian would define 'substance'? (You may consider my motive to be the same as yours.) Thank you, David. 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/
