[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Joseph Maurer]

On Saturday 18 November 2006 10:26 AM Ham writes to Platt:

>snip<

According to Pirsig, existence is everything, and reality is simply a
melding of all differences into Quality. We don't experience things this
way, but we can pretend that differences don't exist. We can also delude
ourselves into thinking that value is morality. We can be Pollyannas and
view the world as a beautiful moral order. This isn't philosophy, it's
poetic fancy. There is no metaphysical or scientific theory to support such
a view.


Hi Ham, Platt and All,

Ham, when you state: "According to Pirsig, existence is everything, and 
reality is simply a melding of all differences into Quality." you have 
oversimplified Pirsig's view of evolution as 'melding'. IMO for Pirsig to 
propose evolution as moral he is proposing dimensions in existence rather 
than 'melding'. Value becomes morality as the analogue to a necessary order 
in existence.  Disorder is a lack of value.

IMO there are 7 orders of existence. The Octave of sound, do, re, mi, fa, 
sol, la, ti is an example of this order. The color spectrum is another 
example. The beauty of music, painting, architecture is in the relationships 
in this order in different mediums-- art. The law of seven is proposed in 
the esoteric literature of Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Nicoll, Rodney Collins, as 
well as a law of three for each manifestation.  Pirsig sees four orders of 
existence for morality.

Joe

>
> Platt --
>
>> 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.
>
> You've offered no suggestion as to how I can communicate my philosophy to
> you in an acceptable way.  Do you really want to proceed?
> I'm willing to start again, in an exploratory fashion, but for now all I
> have to go on is your questions.
>
>> 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?).
>
> I do not reat both alike, and there's no mystery to the fact that the 
> words
> Existence and Essence are similar enough to become confused, just as are
> Existentialsm and Essentialism.  I don't have the advantage of italics 
> here,
> so I used initial caps to distinguish these terms.
>
>> > 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.
>
> Since you've introduced "ultimate reality" before I was prepared to define
> it, I'll repeat the distinction I made between physical and metaphysical
> reality:
>> Whatever is NOT relational and differentiated has
>> as its source an Essence that is without difference or
>> division.  Essence cannot be defined or verified
>> empirically; it is not a physical entity.  Like the concepts
>> Absolute and Infinite, Essence can only be posited
>> intuitively, by an extension of logical, moral or aesthetic
>> principles that we call Metaphysics.  Thus, Metaphysics
>> is the theory of reality beyond, but not exclusive of,
>> the physical (empirical) universe.
>>
>> I [also] 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?
>
> [Platt]:
>> 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.
>
> A differentiated system is one that exhibits "difference"; its components
> are different from each other -- each thing is separated from and in some
> way distinguishable from evey other.  This is what we experience in 
> physical
> reality.  We perceive and evaluate each successive experience experience
> relative to all the others.  The mental image we have of the  physical
> universe is a "relational" system characterized by difference.
>
>> 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.)
>
> This is exactly what I am trying to do, Platt.  But you bring up issues 
> that
> are not relevant to these fundamental definitions based on the presumption
> that they will be problematic at a later time.  So it's one step forward 
> and
> two steps back.
>
>> 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?
>
> Right now I'm talking about normal, everyday experience of physical 
> reality
> which relates to what we call existence.  Let's try to resist the 
> temptation
> to look for problems down the road.
>
>> 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.
>
> According to Pirsig, existence is everything, and reality is simply a
> melding of all differences into Quality.  We don't experience things this
> way, but we can pretend that differences don't exist.  We can also delude
> ourselves into thinking that value is morality.  We can be Pollyannas and
> view the world as a beautiful moral order.  This isn't philosophy, it's
> poetic fancy.  There is no metaphysical or scientific theory to support 
> such
> a view.
>
> The question is: Do you want to hear me out, or will considering a
> plausible theory based on a bit of logic damage your sanguine perspective?
>
> Your move.
>
> 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/
>