[MD] Objectivism and the MOQ

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

[H]
This Valuism theory continues to be a work in progress, but it's the moral 
core of my philosophy.  In order to be meaningful to the reader, a philosophy 
must show how the individual "relates" to reality -- metaphysically and 
epistemologically.  That's why I'm determined to take Individualism to its 
cosmological roots.  I believe Ayn Rand was an Idealist foremost 
(despite her avoidance of the term.)  I don't understand why she feels that 
Plato was an "extreme realist", and she seems to side with Aristotle (a true realist), 
whom she characterizes as a "moderate realist".

[L]
In what way does DQ fail to account for man's relation to reality,
metaphysically and epistemologically - or take individualism to its cosmological 
roots?   

Rand transcends traditional classification.  She definitely made some idealistic 
sounding claims, such as: "I don't die, the world dies" and "You must not let the 
world hold you".  Hazel Barnes, in "An Existentialist Ethics" makes this interesting 
observation:

    "There is always in Rand's work an implicit reference to an absolute judgment 
    which stands outside immediate involvements of the individual life, which 
    remains human and yet is never caught up in human affairs."


Have you figured out yet why Rand feels Plato was an extreme realist?  He, he. 


[H]
But the ultimate Essence is NOT Existence.  Existence is a cognitive
"representation" of Essence-Value -- two steps removed from Essence. 

[L]
According to Essentialism.  We've been down this road before.  
If Essence is anything beyond your fancy, it either IS or is encompassed 
by Existence.  What is, is the open ground of Objectivism. 


[H]
Rand's attempt to explain objects as "concepts" is the equivalent of Pirsig
explaining them as "patterns".  "Constructs" is a better term for
existential reality; but objects have to be grounded in something other than
intellect, which is a cerebral function.  This was Plato's problem: he was
unable to relate his "idealized universals" to the undifferentiated Absolute
Source.  

[L]
Objects are grounded in Existence.  Objectivism rejects Cosmology.  
Existence is the undifferentiated Absolute Source.  Existence is multi-dimensional.  


[H] 
Then Aristotle came along and dropped the Source, ascribing
"essences" to the phyla of things and creatures.  It was Plotinus who
realized that existents emanate from a holistic essence and that the mind
shapes and orders them in space/time.  His epistemology is the basis for
both the MoQ and Essentialism, and Pirsig has acknowledged his closeness to
Plotinus.

[L] 
Existence is the holistic essence from which existents are manifested in space/
time and ordered by the mind.



[H]
Yes, I agree that, pragmatically and sociologically, individual freedom is
the conclusion we are striving for.  What I'm trying to do is define the
metaphysical principle underlying this conclusion.  

[L] 
Life is GOOD, and time is short.  That's the underlying metaphysical principle!  


[H]
I see no "moral" implication in Pirsig's Quality thesis, and would have been happier had he
based the MoQ on Value as such.  But neither Quality nor Value can exist
without cognitive sensibility.  And sensibility or awareness cannot create
itself from organic evolution.  Despite Pirsig's disdain for spirituality
and "religious baggage", there must be a primary source for this
subject/object dichotomy.

[L] 
Existence includes a basic drive to self-organize and self-transcend.  Sensibility or 
awareness is a form of organic evolution.  Existence is the primary source of the subject/
object dichotomy.


[H]
Close, but no cigar.  Rand's explanation is straight down the Naturalist
path.  Existence (Nature) is primary to intellection (consciousness).  

[L] 
Nature, with a capital N, encompasses consciousness, and consciousness encompasses nature, 
lowercase n.  Great Chain of Being.  Within Objectivism they are perfectly integrated, but 
the hierarchy remains.  

Cheers -- Laramie