[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi again, SA --


I see you that you are already questioning the various views of
Consciousness and Quality that are presented in this forum.  It's important
that you continue to question, because it's the best way to "test" other
people's concepts against those that are true for you.  When you stop
questioning, it's a sign that you're either no longer interested, have
become indoctrinated to someone else's ideas, or (in the best case) have
defined your own.

Since you have returned to my favorite topic, I'd like to comment on my
brief exchange with Dan Glover.  I had asked him ...

> Do you care to offer some theories that might be
> applied to a Creation hypothesis, mine or Pirsig's?

His response was to quote that encounter between Phaedrus and Rigel where
the author implies that he knows something (about Quality as a universal
source) that Rigel is too dense to understand.  Since the author does not
explain his concept, the reader can only infer that if he doesn't understand
what Phaedrus is hinting at, he's no smarter than Rigel.

Dan's comment at the end of the quote was:

> "A "universal source of things" sounds suspiciously
>  like a creation hypothesis on my end."

Since the assertion "Quality, on which there is complete agreement, is a
universal source of things," is neither a Creation hypothesis nor an
empirical truth, I replied:
> It sounds on my end as if Phaedrus
> had better come up with one soon!"

You said:
> Ham, since quality is with reality, as Phaedrus
> would explain, because quality cannot be taken away
> from reality here and now, then Essence being as you
> say a source of all (and still debate how it fits with
> all) would have to include something as general and
> ordinary to life as quality.

If we're talking about existence, lots of things are "with reality" -- 
matter, change, consciousness, time, space, beauty, love, goodness, evil,
life, and love, for instance.  I don't see "quality" standing out as that
much more significant than any of these.  It can "seem" to, of course, when
an author writes a book that defines everything as quality.  Religious
writers often would have their readers believe that everything is "good"
because God is good.  What do you see as the distinction here?  (At least
the believers aren't afraid to connect their "goodness" with a primary
source.)

You further say:
> Since, much is inquired and even learned in the
> comparisons of what certain things mean and relate to
> each other, such as, what is nothingness, what is
> differentiation, why must negate be happening, why
> this and this and this, these do turn up fruitful
> ideas, but the same basic principles are unknown and
> still questioned.
[snip]
> [P]eople after all these thousands of
> years still argue, question, and have different
> meanings and definitions of what God is, thus,
> I would say God is out of the reach of intellect,
> too.  Take this with a grain of salt or take this
> as what I still see as the unending try to define
> some things with life that cannot be defined.

Yes, that is true.  We cannot have absolute knowledge.  Theories are not
"facts", and will always be debated.  But as I've said before, it is the
philosopher's obligation to provide an ontology for his theory, particularly
when he claims it is a new concept of reality.  Simply saying that Quality
is a universal source of things because "there is complete agreement" about
it may be an opinion or a notion, but it is not a philosophical thesis.
(Actually, the current world situation makes it painfully clear that there
isn't universal agreement about what Quality is.)  And when that same author
claims to be making a contribution to man's understanding of "morality" with
the premise "some things are better than others", he isn't living up to his
claims, in my opinion.

What I'm trying to do with Essentialism is to posit a metaphysical theory of
reality drawn from the logic of theological scholars, philosophers, and
contemporary thinkers, focusing on the role of man as a free agent and the
value that is his existential reality.  It's only a hypothesis, and I may
not have it right; but unless we're able to see a connection between the
individual self and the absolute source, life has no essential meaning.

Best regards,
Ham