[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Platt Holden]

Ham --

[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.

[Ham] 
> 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 thought I did, i.e., begin with a discussion and clarification of 
initial premises and definitions. I guess you don't want to do that.

> > 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.

If you sound out the words they are completely different. But this is a 
good example of how our thought patterns clash.

> > > 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?

I guess the average high school sophomore is a lot smarter than me 
because you lost me in the first sentence. 

 
> [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.

I don't think in terms of "systems." Maybe that's my problem.

> > 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.

Well, I think the issues I bring up are very much related.

> > 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.

Physical reality "relates" to what we call existence, but a lot a 
people, including my high school sophomore, may believe existence 
includes God and UFO's. If I ignore such people in trying to explain 
what I mean by existence, I'll lose most of my audience. In other 
words, in writing to a general audience, I always try to anticipate 
problems of meaning and understanding.
 
> > 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.

According to Pirsig, Quality is what exists before differences are 
articulated.

> We don't experience things
> this way, but we can pretend that differences don't exist.

Pirsig doesn't say differences don't exist. In fact he describes a  big 
difference between Dynamic and static Quality. 

> 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.

If you've read Lila with care, you know perfectly well that Pirsig 
supports his theory with plenty of logic and lots of empirical 
evidence. 
 
> 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?

At this point, I bow out. I see no hope of resolving our "differences." 
:-) It was a game try, though.

Best regards,
Platt