[MD] Pressed Ham

[Stephen Hannon]

Hello Ham,

It seems to me that your Essence and Pirsig's Quality are pretty much
the exact same thing, but after that you two differ on how to divide
it.  Having a monism at the top such as Essence or Quality seems to
set you two apart from other philosophers.  I haven't been in this
forum very long, so I haven't seen all the discussion about your
philosophy.  However I think your posts are valuable here because of
the Essence/Quality connection.

On a different note, on the subject of Individual vs. Collective, to
anyone who is interested I commented on this topic a long time ago in
my forum essay:

David Morey had a concept of "Freedom" in his essay.  I thought this
was ambiguous and proposed two different kinds of freedom: "Individual
Freedom" and "System Potential."  Replace "System Potential" with
"Collective Potential" and I think this gets closer to what we've been
talking about.  I proposed that "Collective Potential" increased from
Inorganic to Intellectual, while "Individual Freedom" decreases:

"A society, a form of Social Quality, has more potential than an
individual man, a form of Biological Quality.  Each individual man is
constrained by society, usually by laws.  America's laws must conform
to the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which
are a form of Intellectual Quality.  These ideals have more potential
than the laws themselves.  For example, the Bill of Rights, part of
American law, is specific to this country but life and liberty are
ideals embraced by many societies."

What do people think about this?  Sorry if I'm mixing threads here, I
had a couple of different ideas at once.

Regards,
Steve H

On 8/18/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>