[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos --

> I think that your essence is equivalent to DQ except
> that you more strongly resist the urge to name it as Pirsig
> has done, thus it could be regarded as a more inclusive
> term?

Do you mean "define it" when you say "name it"?  Or are you suggesting that
I should have named Essence Quality (for Pirsig's sake)?

> Personally I see unpatterned quality to be all inclusive
> though, so if you go by what you guess I think I'm actually
> alluding to rather than what the dictionary constrains my
> vocabulary to represent.....

As I tried to make clear to SA, the "all-inclusive" concept is a fusion of
finite entities -- the equivalent of Pantheism -- and is an improper
definition for Essence.  Essence is not "everything" because it has no
"things".  Philosophers have known for centuries that the "first principle"
or Primary Source is indescribable, and most of them -- from Aristotle on -- 
regarded "the Whole in itself" as Being or beingness.  That too is wrong,
because being must be made aware in order to exist.  Which is why Nicholas
of Cusa came up with the "Not-other" premise.  "The first principle cannot
be other either than an other or than nothing and likewise is not opposed to
anything," he said.  God is "not other", because God is not other than any
[particular] other, even though "not-other" and "other" [once derived] are
opposed.  But no other can be opposed to God from whom it is derived.

> Can you describe any fundamental differences between
> what you perceive me to understand by unpatterned quality
> (DQ), and what you perceive to be essence?
> (Basically I need us both to be psychic)

I don't understand "unpatterned" Quality any more than I understand
"patterned" Quality, so I can't be very helpful.  To me, Quality is like
Value -- a psycho-emotional response to something experienced.  It defines
our subjective appraisal of the beauty, worth, or significance of an
experienced phenomenon.  We don't experience Essence directly, but we are
aware of its value (to us).  This is demonstrated by the fact that we cling
dearly to life and continually seek a a ground in "beingness".  The value we
see in being and enact in choosing is our essential reality, but we
experience it differentially rather than essentially.

I have no idea what you mean by needing us "to be psychic"  I don't consider
myself pyschic; do you?

> If they are in fact identical then lets toss a coin and
> pick one term or other to use in conversation?

It isn't the "term" that's in question here; it's the concept, the ontology.
Does Mr. Pirsig, for example, believe that his DQ is the absolute primary
source?  Frankly, he hasn't told us.  Does he think existence is simply DQ
partitioned into multi-level patterns?  If so, he's a pantheist without a
god.  Does he define or suggest a connection between the individual and
Quality other than saying "Quality is a better experience"?  You see, I
can't relate my philosophy of Essence to a theory that rejects a primary
source and the autonomy of man, and that offers no insight on transcending
finitude.

My views are heretical to DMB and others here who take Pirsig's word as the
MoQ Constitution.  Except that they don't agree on what it means.  As a
result, everybody is expected to speak Pirsiginian, no matter what they
really believe.  This is what I call dogmatic brainwashing.  It's really no
different than the Catechism learned at a vulnerable age so that Catholics
can grow up to be "good Christians".  I'm sorry to be disparaging, but I'm a
free-thinker who's learned by experience that one cannot take things for
granted.

Best regards,
Ham