[MD] Probability

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

> 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 are very close to agreement in that I too believe we can't 
experience the "Source" directly and its "value" is what we seek in 
life. We do indeed "want its essence for ourself." As I've said before, 
it is esthetics (beauty) that for me reflects the transcendent Source 
to our poor fallen selves. In the words of Edgar Allen Poe:

"An immortal instinct, deep within the human spirit, is a sense of the 
beautiful. This is what administers our delight in life. But there is 
still something in the distance which we know of, but are unable fully 
to attain.

"This thirst belong to our immortality, a consequence and indication of 
our perennial existence. It is no mere appreciation of the beauty 
before us, but a wild effort to reach the beauty above, to attain a 
portion of that loveliness whose very elements appertain to eternity 
alone.

"When we find ourselves near the point of tears in apprehending beauty, 
we weep not through an excess of pleasure, but through a certain 
petulant, impatient sorrow at our inability to grasp now, wholly, here 
on earth, at once and forever, those divine and rapturous joys of 
which, in rare moments, we attain a brief and indeterminate glimpse.

"The artist struggles to create such supernal beauty, to make one see 
or hear with shivering delight a sight or sound which cannot have been 
unfamiliar to angels."

> 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.

Whereas you see  the value of the Source we seek as creating our world 
of "differentiated otherness," I see the value of the Source in our 
longing for and appreciation of beauty, as suggested by our intellect's 
demand for beauty in our theories, equations and philosophy of  
"Essentialism.". And since beauty plays such a starring role in my 
metaphysics, to name the Source "Quality" becomes a slam dunk.

But I have a feeling I'm repeating myself and that you know all this. 
If so, accept my apology for taking up your time.

Best regards,
Platt
 


> 
> [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
> 
> 
> 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/