[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[ian glendinning]

Gav says to Ham, (Case & Dan mentioned), after first agreeing to
seeing a strong parallel between Ham's essentialism and the MoQ - like
so many of us have expressed too,

> i have to pull you up here ham. pirsig is very clear
> that the 'objective otherness' is ontologically post
> the immediate non-dual experience of quality.

Agreed. So that still leaves that frustrating core that we dance aroud
endlessly - that mystical core of quality.

Case got short shrift from Dan for appearing to dismiss any "whatever"
style of mysticality, and not surprsingly this particular debate
constantly leads to (binary) arguments about alternative mysticisms,
like theism. Let's not go there again. I agreed with Dan's "wise
words" because that core of mystery remains crucial.

Like Case I have a 99.99% physicalist (he would say materialist) view
of reality. (Some people dismiss physical emergence of consciousness
because they are conceptually ignornant of emergence, and resort to
pejorative rhetoric like "acolytes" rather than arguments, to refer to
anyone that does get it.) However,

The core, that .01% remains mysterious, never to be observed as a
distinct ontological object. (and all the ontological objects in the
other 99.99% are emergent conventions - SPV's - explained well by MoQ
and physics - but conventions none-the-less).

I think the reason most of us are here is because we like Bob's
dynamic quality metaphor for that mystical core. Whatever variation we
have on that metaphor, it's aontic - pre-ontological - without
ontology.

Ian