[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --


> Thanks for the reference. Yes, there is much of what
> you say about Value that is compatible with the MOQ,
> especially this: " . . . valuistic experience (is) the
> essence of all awarenesss." and this: " . . . man's
> existence is value-oriented; he is a valuistic creature."
> But whereas you say Essence underlies reality,
> Pirisg says Quality not only underlies reality but,
> in essence, is reality.

You know my position on esthetic values, Platt, so I don't have to explain
why a value like Quality cannot be the primary source.  Yet, while we can't
experience the "uncreated" source directly, I've tried to show that its
"value" is what we all seek in life.  This is the equivalent of saying "we
want its essence for ourself."  In a metaphysical sense, Essence is the
object of our desire.  We sense its value incrementally or relationally in
the properties and qualities of an otherness we do not possess and make them
the "sensible" part of our experience.  At the same time, our intellect (the
cognizant function of the brain) integrates and logs these sensations as
specific "things" in memory, positioning them in an orderly space/time
system that correlates with everybody else's "reality".

The form or "appearance" of reality as "being" is universal; otherwise we
couldn't communicate and co-function intelligently in a civilized world.
But the value of reality isn't its beingness, and this is where our
intellect deceives us.  The value we sense represents that which we do not
possess but can only apprehend as a differentiated otherness.  The human
brain takes these sense impressions (sensibilia) and constructs a
three-dimensional physical world out of them.  Inasmuch as every human brain
works essentially the same way, the world we create has universal
correspondence.  But the source of the self/other dichotomy that presents
objects and their relative values to the individual subject is neither an
object nor a value.  It is Absolute Essence.

[Platt]
> Also, nowhere in your essay did I detect your connecting
> values with morals which, of course, Pirsig does.  Finally,
> when you get to the "logic of double negation" I'm lost
> despite your valiant attempts in the past to enlighten me
> That's just one hurdle that for whatever reason I cannot leap.

No problem, Platt.  Negation is a hypothesis to explain the "self" as a
non-essence.
Because I maintain that Essence is absolute and immutable, it cannot
logically be divided into proprietary awareness(es).  A "level" or "pattern"
of Essence is an oxymoron.  I've concluded that self-awareness has no
essence of its own, that it is created as a negation of Absolute Essence,
and that it borrows the "beingness" of the other (its essential complement)
for its autonomous existence.

But, as some wise person has often said, I could be wrong.

Essentially yours,
Ham