[MD] Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

On 1/21/10 at 10:54 AM. John Carl wrote to Mark:


> I would say I believe the subjective is creative and
> affirmative of the objective, that  there is a constructive
> aspect to the reality "I perceive".

Well stated, John.  This is indeed how I understand "experience", which 
combines sensibility with intellect to construct our reality.  I view 
experience is the active ("creative")process of cognition that "affirms" 
Value by converting it into perceived objects.  Although Pirsig uses a 
different vernacular, I do think he's expressing much the same concept.

[Mark]:
> This is similar to Ham's sensibility.  Marsha believes in the objective,
> that is, what exists both within and outside of our experience.

Marsha's perception is correct, also.  For we are all habituated 
intellectually to the precept that we live in an objective world.  In fact, 
one might say we are "wired" to believe this.  That's why metaphysics is so 
useful as a tool of the intellect.  It enables us to conceive what we are 
not able to experience empirically.

[John]:
> Well I might be closer to Ham than I realized, sensibility seems
> close enough to whatever existence is that I could go with it.
>
> But I don't read Marsha the way you do here.  I'd say rather
> that Marsha believes in "not this, not that" a devout belief in the
> inability of any intellectual pattern to capture what is.
>
> Which is a pretty good point, in itself.  But one I reject as a roller
> coaster existentialist because even though all metaphysical
> platforms might ultimately be incomplete, I still need SOMEthing
> to stand on as I wait my turn for the ride.

John, you call yourself an Existentialist, as I did when I first started 
reading Sartre.  But I'll wager that label will change before the end of the 
year.  You have an advantage I didn't have when I began studying 
philosophy--an exposure to Value which is virtually absent in the 
existentialists' theories.  Even what they called "essence" was more akin to 
substantive "being" than Value or Quality.  My instinct tells me you won't 
remain content with an ontology that doesn't acknowledge Value as the 
metaphysical ground of existence.  And once you begin to question the source 
of Value, you'll be well on the road to Essentialism.

> The Quality view starts with the realization of Value - a platform
> for judging separate from either subject or object and then figures out
> what works best in the moment.

Thanks for restoring my confidence that a "Metaphysics of Essence" can be 
communicated to others who realize their appreciation of Value.  I expect to 
hear more from you as you work this out for yourself.

Essentially yours,
Ham