[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Jos --

> More explanation here please, intruiged but "autonomy of man" and
> "transcending finitude" are these quotes from something?

Perhaps I've been remiss in failing to introduce you to my website where it
is all spelled out.  This will be considered self-promotion at Pirsig's
expense, of course, but you can access my thesis at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm .

Essentialism is centered on the individual and his relation to the Source.
Consider the universe as anthropocentric.  We are here for a reason, to
serve more than our egocentric needs.  Evolution, including the history of
biological and societal development, is secondary to this perspective.
Indeed, all passing phenomena in our experience are space/time relative,
that is to say, differentiated.  We cannot dismiss the empirical fact that
we live as individual subjects in an objective world in which everything is
relative -- whether it's things, events, qualities, values, morality, or
goodness.  I maintain that there is a reason for this relativity: it is to
provide an autonomous agent (the proprietary self) that is metaphysically
separated from the Source, and is thus free to acquire or pursue the values
of his/her choosing.  Let's just say that, as agents of Essence, we
"refresh" or "perfect" its absolute sensibility by providing an unbiased
appreciation of its essential value.  If there is a "morality" to existence,
it is the preservation and respect for every individual's awareness and
freedom.


Ham, quoting Cusa on the not-other:

> ...No other can be opposed to God from whom it is derived.

Jos:

> No argument, perfect description of unpatterned quality.
>
> Right then we understand that we use words in a different way.
> Hence the naming business!  The MOQ allows all things to
> value one another - emotions and the human psyche only apply
> at particular defined evolutionary levels (but you know
> this of course...)

Not so sure.  You mean, as "particularly defined" by Pirsig?

> Unpatterned quality is "the source", when it becomes patterned
> things exist.  In the patterns of existence there is static latching,
> (non temporally) "before" static all is dynamic. All is not other.

Do you understand this?   OK, since names are important to you, here are MY
terms.  Undifferentiated Essence is the source.  When it is actualized,
there is difference (things and events separated from each other by
nothingness).  For example, there is you and me, this and that, before and
after, good and bad, right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, etc.  We are all
presented with a full range of values from which we each choose, wisely or
foolishly.

Ham, previously:
> [Value] 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 ground in "beingness".
>
> Does [Pirsig] think existence is simply DQ partitioned into
> multi-level patterns?  If so, he's a pantheist without a god.

Jos:

> Yes, but so are you. (IMO, sorry) the pantheon are static things,
> DQ is the one true God, worship af the pantheon is pagan
> backwardness.

I am not worshiping static things by realizing their value.  The ultimate
source of value is Essence, which I cannot experience; but I can appreciate
the Source
by my sensibility of its conditional (relative) values.

Ham, previously:

> Does he define or suggest a connection between the
> individual and Quality other than saying "Quality is a
> better experience"?

Jos:

> Uh?? are you mad?
> Experience is from quality, not the other way around.

Please!  Experience is derived from Essence (your quality), but not
directly.  I suppose one could say that the intellect "patterns" objects in
accordance with the values sensed.  My own theory is that existence is
actualized as two "de-valued" essents: Nothingness (awareness potential),
and Otherness (being potential).  In the act of experience, the values of
these essents are reunited to produce being-aware.  (You'll find this
epistemology detailed in my section on Creation.)

Ham, previously:

> 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.

Jos:

> I agree, so we must agree on a decent pidgeon moqean
> dialect with which to communicate, translations from
> French always end up saying what we think an english
> person would have said in the same situation, the literal
> translation from French is probably a more accurate
> reflection of what the frenchman actually meant, with
> all the culturally derived olours patterning his intellect.

Have I sufficiently established a "pigeon moqean" dialect for future
discussion, or do we still need to invent one?  By the way, I have a rather
extensive Glossary at the end of my thesis which defines all the significant
terms as I have used them.  Give it a try and let me know where I need to be
more definitive.

Thanks Jos,
 Ham