[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[David M]

Ham

I think you may be trying to portray a perspective that
requires much speculation, the MOQ portrays what
may well be the same reality but sticking to what we
experience rather than speculating on what things
may look like from an in-experience-able other side.

You ask us to leap to your perspective, it is not without
value but (BIG BUT) it takes us out of this world, this life-world that
we are still struggling to describe well enough for general
agreement.

David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...


> Hi David --
>
>
>> My experiences of intelligence beyond myself
>> make me feel that this intelligence goes beyond
>> the individual but it is as much involved in a journey
>> and an exploration as we are.
>
> You see, David, this is typical of statements based on Pirsig's 
> collectivist
> view of Intellect which is totally incomprehensible to me.  Intellection 
> is
> what the human INDIVIDUAL does; Intellect is HIS capacity to think and 
> form
> concepts.  Intellect is not Quality or Essence.  It is not some rarified
> extracorporeal dimension that hangs around waiting for man to "catch up"
> with it.  Without man there can be no intellect.
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> Differentiation occurs only in the human
>> perspective of Essence, which is Existence.
>
> [DM asks]:
>> Why?  Why does the One need the many?
>
> The answer to your question is the whole point of Essentialism.  You ask
> "Why?", which indicates that there is a reason for "the many."  Indeed 
> there
> is.  But you won't find it in Pirsig's philosophy.
>
> That reason is fully elaborated in my on-line thesis.  I can only provide 
> a
> brief synopsis here:
>
> I define Essence as the absolute, immutable Source.  It is the 
> potentiality
> of all that exists throughout space and time, and is responsible for man's
> concepts of perfection, goodness, beauty, love, and freedom, as well as
> imperfection, evil, ugliness, hatred, and slavery.  These concepts come 
> from
> our values, which are in turn our differentiated sensibility of Essence.
>
> Metaphysically, Essence is self-contained and unchanging potentiality. 
> But
> potentiality is meaningless unless it can be actualized.  Within the
> absolute potentiality of Essence is the power to actualize Difference.
> Nicholas of Cusa theorized that Difference or "contrariety" is the
> actualized mode of space/time existence.  He also defined the source as 
> the
> potentiality to which "no other can be opposed."  In other words, Essence 
> is
> the Not-other and the individual subject is a "negated" other.
>
> My ontology is that Essence is "negational".  It negates (denies)
> Nothingness to create otherness, the result of which is a dichotomy in 
> which
> sensibility is divided from its Source to produce the appearance of Being.
> The individual Self is the infinitesimally differentiated "agent" of this
> dichotomy, and is drawn by the Value of the Source through the space/time
> mode of experience, ultimately reclaiming its estranged Essence.  As a 
> free
> agent, each self chooses the relative values which determine its essential
> identity.
>
> Thus, the purpose of existence is to provide a differentiated otherness
> whereby the Value of Essence can be realized by an autonomous agent.
> Teleologically, actualized reality "perfects" Essence by affording an
> "extrinsic" perspective of its intrinsic Value.
>
> Thanks for another opportunity, David
>
> Best regards,
> 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/
>