[MD] Ham on Esthesia

[Ham Priday]

Platt -- 

You said:

> I hope you will show me where I have gone astray.

I said:

> That's a diplomatic way of saying, where Ham may have gone astray.

That was intended as a self-deprecating remark, Platt.  Even the author of a
philosophy of Essence could be wrong -- especially when it comes to
interpreting what another author might have meant.  (We're all so sensitive
here!)

> Logically there is no difference between Quality, Value
> and Morality.  All represent a preference for something over
> something else, including a preference over nothing. Your
> Essence obviously prefers that there be a world of sentient
> subjects of an objective reality. Otherwise, it wouldn't have
> bothered to become the Source of that world.  Also you
> have stated, "Value is directly derived from Essence," and
> Essence has "value sensibility." I take this to mean that
> value is a fundamental characteristic of Essence.  Pirsig says
> the same thing -- only emphasizes as the Source the "value
> sensibility" of Essence.

I find it difficult to envision sensibility -- whether of Quality, Value or
Morality -- as a causal source.  That is, I don't see esthesia alone having
the potentiality to create.  I know I've stated that Essence is the
"embodiment" of esthetic sensibility.  But, you see, it's also the
embodiment of potentiality.  In fact, it is the embodiment of ALL that IS.
These characteristics, which your favorite author also claims to be
synonomous, are seen as distinct from each other from the finite
perspective.  Essentially, however, they're identical, just as being and
nothing, subject and object, positive and negative, good and evil, and all
other contrarieties are identical within absolute potentiality.

Now, I realize that what Pirsig says about DQ can be assumed to mean the
same thing.  If this is true, then there is less "incompatability" between
our two philosophies than I had thought.  But somehow this idea doesn't come
across to me in the author's statements.  Had he, for example, come up with
something like the "not-other" in explaining the DQ/SQ relationship, or the
concept of DQ as the "ultimate reality" in which opposites are equivalent, I
might have been persuaded that I'm in his court.  Instead, he breaks DQ down
into levels and patterns, and the reader comes away with a pantheistic
notion of the physical universe evolving in time rather than a
differentiated existence as the "intent" of a sensible Creator.  For me, at
least, the "potentiality" of Quality as a creative source is missing.  I'm
being candid with you, Platt; can you understand my apprehension here?

> ... And as you have intimated,  the Absolute Oneness must have
> "value sensitivity" in order to create. That's where you and Pirsig
> see eye to eye.

Make that "sensibility" or "esthesia", please.   Yes, but it must also have
potentiality as a creator.  Sensibility doesn't cut it, as I explained
above.  It would not be illogical to postulate an insensible Essence with
the power to create.

> One thing we are in total agreement about: "We cannot explain
> man's awareness on biological functions alone."

Yes, but have you seen Case's recent assertion on this?

> [Case]
> It is hard to imagine awareness emerging in the absence of
> a lump of meat.  Awareness is a biological function.

I said:

> Unfortunately, for all his alleged overcoming of duality,
> Mr. Prisig has not shown us how it is supposed to benefit
> the individual.

You say:

> He has not overcome duality -- just the subject/object form
> of it.  He has shown us that the greatest value is freedom with
> just enough order necessary to prevent devolution into chaos.
> To reaffirm that philosophically is beneficial to the individual
> don't you think?

"Just enough order to prevent chaos" doesn't sit well with me.  Personally,
I believe the comos to be a more perfect system than humans yet know.  It is
our experience of it that is faulty, and the chaotic steps we take to make
it "better".  (I tend to side with the Platonic and Buddhistic
interpretation of physical existence, which is that anything less than
Oneness is differentiated awareness that spans "best" to "worst".)  That is
what we need as autonomous "beings" with free choice.

You are continuing to raise some difficult, but profound, issues.  As a
result, I'm beginning to see greater understanding between us.  I hope you
see this too.

Thanks for the insight on Pirsig's philosophy.

Essentially yours,
Ham