[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Platt Holden]

Ham -

It's fairly obvious our thought patterns are so different as to be 
incompatible. So any attempt to reach a consensus appears doomed
from the start. To illustrate:

> Platt --
> > 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:

[Ham] 
> But this is a basic premise AND a definition.  I said:

[Platt]
That's what I said. I asked that we stop and "examine" your premise and 
definition.

> > 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.
> 
> No.  I capitalized it because I didn't want it to be confused with
> Essence.

How capitalizing Existence to distinguish it from Essence escapes me. 
If anything treating both alike suggests they are alike (See what I 
mean by different thought patterns?). 

> > 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.
> 
> Existence is the reality that appears in time and space.  I've said
> nothing about ultimate reality or "being" in this statement.

Here you introduce a new idea that bears examination -- a difference 
between reality and ultimate reality. What's different about the 
reality and ultimate reality? What's the evidence for a difference? And 
is your meaning of "being" reserved for "ultimate reality?" This may 
all be perfectly clear to you, but not to me.    
 
> > 3. "Experienced" by what or whom?  Raising the
> > issue of "Do animals and/or robots experience?"
> 
> Everything experienced means exactly that: whatever is experienced by
> anything that can experience.  Please don't finesse the fundamentals
> with you own specifics.  (I prefer to leave the subject of experience
> for another discussion.)

Unless we can agree on the specifics of the fundamentals, we're lost at 
the start. 
 
> > 4. Is "differentiated" the same as "distinctive?"
> > If so, let's use the simpler word or find a suitable
> > simpler expression..
> 
> I have not used the word "distinctive" anywhere in these statements.  I
> did use the word "distinction".  I said that the relational
> (differentiated) nature of existence was its "primary distinction".  Is
> the meaning of this sentence unreasonably difficult for the average high
> school sophomore?

I assume if I have trouble translating the sentence, so would the 
average high school sophomore. "Differentiated" is not a common word. I 
stumble over it every time I see it.

> > 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.
> 
> Does the MOQ not acknowledge existence as the reality that is
> experienced? I'm not talking about what is "prior" to experience.  If
> mental concepts are not images of what we experience, then what are
> they?  So far, I don't see that I have contradicted the MOQ.  Why should
> you or I anticipate problems that may come up in subsequent discussions?

Because if we don't get such basic ideas as "existence," "reality" and 
"experience" clearly defined and understood at the outset, nothing but 
confusion will reign subsequently. (Another example of how our thought 
patterns differ.)

> > 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.)
> 
> Now it's my turn to yell Whoa!  You're jumping way ahead of me.  You
> make an assumption about Essence which I haven't even mentioned in this
> premise. I'm laying out the fundamentals of existence and you're already
> arguing about the levels of Quality, epistemology, and robotic
> experience.  I'm not ready to discuss how experience occurs or the issue
> of inorganic experience at this juncture.

So your not ready, and I'm not ready. Different ways of thinking. I see
little hope of continuing.

> > 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.
> 
> This is not a good start to a productive dialogue, Platt.  I'm
> proceeding at a snail's pace compared to your "turtle-like approach". 
> You have asked that we agree on definitions.  If you won't accept my
> definition of existence as stated, tell me why and provide your own
> definition.  Otherwise, how do I communicate with you?
> 
> I thought defining what we call existence was a good fundamental place
> to start.  Apparently, you see it as a mine field.  Perhaps you can
> suggest another approach to this subject that isn't so controversial.
 
It's only controversial because we think differently. If you want to 
start over by defining "existence," that's fine with me. Are you 
talking about "existence" or "ultimate existence?" How many 
"existences" shall we postulate?

Pirsig is clear: existence is experience. (There are no ultimate 
existences or experiences.) Experience is Quality. Quality is value. 
Value is morality. Ergo, existence is a moral order. Evidence? You 
cannot make any statement or hold any belief about existence without 
acknowledging your statement or belief has the values of truth or 
beauty or goodness.

Your move.

Best regards,
Platt