[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA (Scott and Platt mentioned) --


Back on 2/12, shortly after you joined the MD, you told me your goal was "to
understand where Scott, Platt, and Ham are coming from on each point of
discussion."

Fair enough.  But I can't speak for Scott or Platt.  I can only tell you
that Scott and Platt are long-time adherents of Pirsig's ideas, and both
will defend the MoQ against challenges from outsiders.

In my three years with this forum, I have found Scott to be a master
logician who has found some faults in the MoQ.  In the course of identifying
these faults, he has made several statements that don't make sense to me, as
one of the 'outsiders'.   Here are a few:

[Scott]
> I reject the concept of "primary source" in metaphysics
> (it leads to idolatry).
>
> We don't need a primary source because --
> metaphysically -- we don't need to separate "everything"
> into "source" and "consequence".  ...In my view, any
> metaphysics that does not make use of the logic of
> contradictory identity will end up as idolatry.  [5/16/05]

> [O]ne cannot say that essences exist, and one cannot say
> that essences do not exist, etc.  [8/27/05]

> The sense of self arises when our will,
> including our intellectual will (e.g., trying to solve
> puzzles), gets frustrated. In pre-intellectual days,
> this wouldn't happen, since people didn't think of
> themselves as autonomous at all.  [11/04/05]

> There is no undivided source ontologically prior to
> differentiation or negation, nor is differentiation a
> source. There is, that is, no source above and beyond
> what is, which is CI, which is consciousness, value,
> and/or semiosis, depending on the point one wants
> to make. Such a source is an idol.  [2/3/06]

As for Platt, you will see that he looks upon the MoQ as a reinforcement for
his aesthetic
appreciation of Beauty.  Platt is essentially a connoisseur of art and music
who has tried valiantly to equate Quality with his conservative
socio-political ideology.  He appears to have little interest in discussing
the metaphysical fundamentals of philosophy.

In my initial talks with you, I expressed my own goals as follows:

> My overall objective is to get my Philosophy of
> Essence across, but it's usually necessary here to
> explain it in the context of the MoQ.  So I find
> myself tailoring my responses to the specific
> mindset or belief-system of the person I'm talking to.
> You are a good "test case" for me; you understand
> what Pirsig meant by Quality, but you haven't yet
> been indoctrinated to the DQ/SQ hierarchy
> developed in LILA.  This was exactly my position
> when I joined this forum.  So I have an opportunity
> with you to expound Essentialism as simply as I can
> without resorting to the MoQ analogies.  [2/13/06]

I prefer to keep it that way.  That is, I'm always happy to answer questions
relative to Essentialism; but I cannot interpret my philosophy in a way that
supports Anti-theism, Pantheism, Semiotics, New Age multi-dimensionalism,
Physicalism, or Nihilism.

Meantime, good luck to you in Qualityland.

Regards,
Ham