[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

David, Ian, Jos, SA, Platt, other concerned parties  --


It seems much longer, but exactly two years ago I joined the MD, asking that
you folks review my Philosophy of Essence and compare it with the MoQ, which
Bob Pirsig and I both thought were quite similar.  Since that time several
fundamental differences have surfaced.  This is not surprising, inasmuch as
I had developed Essentialism prior to my reading of Prisig, and have taken a
metaphysical position that is in some ways "at odds with" Pirsig's
conclusions.

I have always been open with regard to these differences, explaining them to
those who expressed interest, and answering questions from those who
suspected that I had "some other agenda".  Indeed, until recently I had
assumed that, with some modification, the two philosophies were compatible.
Now, however, DMB, Ian and (possibly) Jos have indicated that Essentialism
is conceptually irreconcilable with the MoQ, effectively suggesting that I
don't belong here.

Participation in this forum has been an interesting diversion for me -- even
a source of inspiration on occasion.  But I am also aware that the MD is Mr.
Pirsig's territory and that my reluctance to speak in "patternese" amounts
to "refusing to play by the rules."

Therefore, I've decided that the fair thing to do is follow Platt's
approach, listing my fundamental beliefs so that you may compare them with
what you understand to be those of the MoQ.  (This should also answer some
of the challenges DMB has just posted to me.)  After reviewing these basic
tenets, should you decide (collectively, or with Horse's support) that I
shouldn't be here, I'll cancel my subscription.

1.  I consider the aim of Philosophy to be an unbiased quest for the true
nature    of reality and man's role in it.

2.  The primary source is an Absolute Essence that is incapable of human
description but whose value is experienced differentially.

3.  Physical existence is actualized (by the negation of Essence) as a
dichotomy consisting of two complementary value-depleted contingencies:
subjective awareness and objective otherness.  Metaphysically, awareness is
nothingness; otherness is an insensible essent (differentiated by the
intellect as beingness).  The interaction of these contingencies creates
"being-aware".

4.  The individual (self) is separated from Essence and all finite entities
by nothingness.  (This affords the autonomy required for free choice.)

5.  All awareness (experience of other) is proprietary to the individual, as
are intellect, concepts, ideas, feelings, desires, and recollections.

6.  Space/time is the mode of human experience.  (Essence is not bound by,
nor can it be described by, evolutionary process or the dimensions of
finitude.)

7.  Although Value represents Essence to the finite awareness, and is the
individual's true essence, it is not a contingency but resides in the
Oneness of Essence.

8.  Truth, value, quality, morality, beauty, justice, goodness and evil are
all relative to the individual subject, despite having universally accepted
norms or empirical standards.

9.  The physical world is an anthropomorphic system in which man is the
self-deterministic agent that shapes its reality.

10. The purpose of life is to develop and nurture the value-sensibility
granted to every individual and to respect the freedom and sensibility of
one's fellow creatures.

While I await your verdict, I would appreciate your assessment at to where
Pirsig stands on these ten points and how objectionable they are to the
dedicated MoQer.

Respectfully,
Ham