[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joseph --


> 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, your description of Value evolving into a "moral order" is fascinating,
but it leaves man out of the ontology.  Surely recognizing the symmetry or
harmony of value is what man does.  It is man's capacity to sense value in
the cosmos -- aesthetically, intellectually, emotionally, and
moralistically -- which gives meaning to existence.  This is a
"differential" sensibility of something that is essentially whole and
undivided: the value of the Source.

I agree that most of the aesthetic examples you've cited, along with
numerical relationships, the laws of contrariety, geometric patterns,
principles of equilibrium, etc., suggest the intelligent design of the
universe.  But they all require differentiation by a subject in order to be
made aware.  Man is the "differentiator" who is cognizant of this cosmic
order.  Without man there would be no value.

I also don't think attempting to define this order as "laws of three, four
or seven" is a useful analysis, since man can intellectually find order in
virtually any numbered scheme.  In my philosophy, the root of difference
is duality -- the subject/object dichotomy which makes possible the
appearance of being.  The parameters of this dichotomy are defined by the
space/time mode of experience and the opposition of being and nothingness
which is the ground of existence.  Man does not create this dichotomy; it is
the negation of a pre-intellectual, uncreated source that transcends all
divisions.  I call this source Essence, and I define existence as the
"actualized" or negated mode of Essence.

>From what I've read of the New Age philosophies of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky,
and the MoQ of Pirsig, I've seen no reference to a primary source and no
epistemology for the creation of proprietary awareness.  In my opinion,
these philosophers have all predicated their cosmologies on the existential
perspective of scientific objectivism.   Simply stated, reality is an
otherness from which man emerges as an  evolutionary byproduct.  This has
wide appeal in our nihilistic culture where spirituality and a transcendent
reality are considered "religious baggage" from a pre-enlightened age, yet
these are the very concepts needed to fill the void in our understanding.

Anyway, this is what I believe.

Thanks for the beautiful scenario, Joe.

-- Ham