[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA, then --

> That's what I said about existence.  Everything
> is moving, yet, this Is-ness called Essence.  Does it
> move?  Then how do you explain movement if it does not
> move?  Since Essence is not everything, but is All,
> then I see a separation between Existence and Essence,
> and that separation is unbearable.

What you're expressing demonstrates why, despite all the fine intellectual
thinking throughout the history of Western Philosophy, the creation of an
evolutionary, differentiated world from an immutable, absolute source
remains an enigma.  This is the reason I put so much emphasis on trying to
establish agreement with you on what nothingness is and how it functions to
produce this experiential reality that we call existence.  It's also why I
believe Cusa's theory of the not-other is a significant breakthrough in our
understanding of this dilemma.

Let me refresh your thinking with a review of what seem to be the major
points of contention.  First of all, the definition "all that is" does not
mean "everything one may possibly think or experience."  Essence is the
primary SOURCE of "everything", but it does not contain what is "unreal".
For example, things experienced are not real, nor are our thoughts about
them.  Only what IS is real; which is why Eckhart used the term "is-ness".
So we have to ask: What is fundamental or primary reality?  This question
was implicit in my heading: "Looking for the Primary Difference".

What is real are the fundamental metaphysical properties necessary to create
and sustain the appearance of an otherness.  A primary source is necessary:
I call it Essence.  Essence is absolute Oneness; so Difference is necessary
for the appearance of an other.  To create Difference, Essence denies or
negates what it doesn't have or need -- nothingness.  Nothingness, then,
becomes the not-other (negate) which senses (experiences) Essence as
appearance.  (Consider awareness as a reduction of absolute sensibility.)
Note that we now have a subject/object duality: the negate is the sensible
subject and the appearance of Essence is the object.  Appearance is further
broken down into particular "beings" -- what you've referred to as
"pieces" -- by the negational function of the intellect.  But since
beingness is only the appearance of Essence, the images we construct of
finite objects and events are not essential and do not constitute what is
real.

Material existence is not real.  The only realities are Essence (absolute
sensibility), negation (the potential to actualize or create), negated
nothingness (the not-other), and essential value.  They are all metaphysical
descriptors of Essence, and they all converge in its Oneness.  Everything
else is actualized as appearance, which has no reality.  Are we clear on
this?

> Something must connect Essence with Existence,
> since Essence is All that IS.

Value is the connector.  Value links awareness with its source, which is why
I say that Value is the essence of man.  Existence is non-essential
beingness, and is not real.  Try to think of it as "appearance" instead of
as substantive reality.

> I see Stillness as a connector, and as to what you
> said, "Perhaps you regard "stillness" and "quietude"
> as representative of the nothingness that permeates
> the universe."  Yes, I would.

Stillness may have value for you, since it does relate to essential
nothingness.  My point was that we don't need to contemplate something
stationary or static to find value.  Existence is abundant with value, and
it's mostly found in the subtle variations of things in transition.

> You said: "I'm extremely disappointed to find you
> reciting Pirsigian scripture so early in our
> discussion.  If you are going to start throwing the
> notion of "people tapping into conditions" (of value)
> at me..."  I did not know this is a Pirsigian concept
> or scripture.

I didn't mean to jump on you, and I don't want to discourage your reading of
Pirsig.  (After all, this is the author's official website.)  It's just that
I've been bombarded by the same Pirsig quotes from day one purporting to
"explain" the meaning of his philosophy, morality, ethics, artistic
position, political leanings, and international strategy, and they make no
more sense to me the second or third time around.

When you've completed your study of LILA, you'll be persuaded that Quality
is a fundamental principle of the universe (i.e., existence) that drives
everything to "betterness".  This is Pirsig's Morality.  You'll find that it
has very little to do with the individual, but is about the evolution of
socio-cultural behavior (not awareness) in a historical context, drawing
upon, "tapping into", or otherwise "latching" onto this universal principle
which is sometimes improbably referred to as "Intellect".

You may also be disappointed that mention of such individual attributes as
sentient awareness, consciousness, creativity, and personal motivation is
virtually absent in this philosophy.  I would describe the MoQ as a
collective, almost pantheistic concept of reality based on an esthetic
attribute (DQ) which is arbitrarily divided into four SQ levels that account
for everything experienced.  Pirsig eschews metaphysics and definitions, so
that it's difficult to pin down his poetic language into any meaningful
premise or moral position, and almost impossible to compare his philosophy
directly with anyone else's.  For me, the best thing about LILA was the
development of his characters and the story itself.

I know you've posted a more recent message, but will have to get to that
later.

Best regards,
Ham