[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ - an aside

[MarshaV]

At 07:55 PM 11/17/2006, Platt wrote:
>
>
>Whoa. You are proceeding too fast for my ability to keep pace. As I
>said, I like to examine basic premises first and foremost, along with
>agreement on definitions. So let's take a look at your number one
>premise:
>
> > Essentialism holds that Existence, and everything experienced as
> > occurring within the dimensions of time and space, is relative and
> > differentiated.
>
>1. Is there any reason to capitalize "existence." If not, let's not.
>
>2. Is "existence" the same as "reality." If so, let's use "real" and
>"reality" instead of "being" and "existence" for the sake of simplicity
>and clarity.
>
>3. "Experienced" by what or whom? Raising the issue of "Do animals
>and/or robots experience?"
>
>4. Is "differentiated" the same as "distinctive?" If so, let's use the
>simpler word or find a suitable simpler expression..
>
>Then recognize at the outset that your premise is contradicted by the
>MOQ. It holds that reality is experience prior to any distinctions made
>by mental concepts. Such distinctions only come after primary, direct
>experience. And yes, animals and robots experience. (Experience exists
>at the inorganic level.) Further, it holds that there is no distinction
>between experience and Quality. (Quality is capitalized because in the
>MOQ it is central to Pirsig's metaphysics, just as Essence is central
>to yours.)
>
>I know -- picky, picky, picky. So please feel free to dismiss my turtle-
>like approach. I'm sure others can keep up with the pace of your
>intellect better than me and go right to your questions.
>
>Best regards,
>Platt



Old wise one, I bow to your intellect.

Marsha