[MD] Ever redefining self

[Ham Priday]

SA --


> I really want to know if you believe, think, or
> have included in your thesis an acceptance that
> reality has this undefinable aspect that I believe
> does exist.  I am not going to assume your opinion or
> thought on the issue.  That's why I ask.

First of all, I don't know what you believe exists.  I don't believe man can
access the Absolute, and that includes "absolute truth".  The intellectual
mind is capable of discerning laws and principles about the natural world
and applying them to the creation or manipulation of things for the
betterment (or destruction) of mankind.  This is a way of "defining
objective aspects of reality" that we call universal knowledge, meaning that
it is the same for everybody.

However, as you've pointed out, man is not capable of defining his
subjective self in the empirical way that he defines, say, a chair or a
rock.  Subjectivity remains ephemeral or speculative because it is
proprietary to the individual and has no measurable properties.  Likewise,
the human intellect is unable to confirm or disprove the existence of a
Creator, the truth of the Big Bang theory, or the possibility of a
Hereafter.  (Indeed, if you've followed my discussions with Case, you'll see
that he believes everything happens according to the laws of probability.)

Most philosophers deny that something can come from nothing (creatio ex
nihilo), and instead attribute the cause to some aspect of beingness.  The
existentionalist Sartre, for instance, defined experiential existence as
Being-in-itself becoming being-for-itself.  Pirsig is one of a handful of
postmodernists to reject being as the foundation of reality.  He has posited
Quality as the "primary empirical reality", Franklin Merrell-Wolf theorized
pure consciousness as "the One, nonderivative reality", while others have
argued for a "semiotic" reality that is comprised only of symbols and
numbers.

None of these philosophies explain how their fundamental reality got here,
most claiming the question to be "irrelevant".  This is why I believe
Essentialism is unique: it accounts for subjective awareness, the cause and
purpose of existence, the nature of value, and man's transcendental
connection with the source.  It even gives plausible reasons why absolute
knowledge is denied to man.  Again, all of this is discussed in my thesis at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.

> I have posit[ed] a question to you above.  Your
> answer would let me know what your view of the world
> is and what my view of the world is and how close we
> are in our views.  This must be how I learn.  I state
> something.  You debate or agree with it.  I find out
> how far our views are from each other.

I can't summarize my entire philosophy in two or three brief paragraphs, nor
would I expect you to do so.  We can't learn to read if we haven't mastered
the alphabet; we can't learn how to multiply if we don't know what a number
is.  We learn one step at a time -- one principle, one concept, one basic
idea.  If we were each to compose an extended essay, chances are you and I
would be talking on different topics in different ways, and we'd never come
to a consensus.  I've already written many essays on specific aspects of my
philosophy.  They're too long to post here, but you can check the titles in
my archive at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm, and select one that you'd
like to compare notes or ask questions about.  That way, you'll see where
I'm coming from, and will be able to ask a meaningful question.  (For
starters, I suggest that you read this week's column on Value.)

Appreciate your interest, as always.

Regards,
Ham