[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham) I'd like to know what, specifically, you find questionable in 
these statements. For example, relative to the quoted passages, do you 
believe: 

1) that any being can exist without one's awareness of it? 
2) that a particular object can be identified or recognized without 
being separated from everything else? 
3) that the proposition "all that is" does not imply "nothing that is 
not"? 
4) that it is a contradiction for absolute potentiality to be the 
cause of absolute actuality? 
5) that existence is not a dichotomy whose contingencies are awareness 
and beingness? 

Chin) Being is not dependent on these observances. 

Ham) 6) that Eckhart did not say "To create is to give being out of 
nothing"? 

Ham) What other "I" would an individual be than his Self, his being-
aware? Incidentally, I have some problems with Eckhart's 
phrase "ground of the soul," which I think is ambiguous. If 
by "ground" Eckhart means "essence", then he's saying that the soul is 
indigenous to God's essence, which I reject. On the other hand, if 
by "ground" he means "cause" or "source" of the soul, obviously there 
can be no disagreement. I'm also assuming that Eckhart is not 
equating "soul" with the Creator but with the individual psyche or 
self. 

Chin) He said the son is reborn in the father. 

> And, pretty much what I have read so far is as I > suspected from 
reading what you have written in this > forum, an attempt to bring 
Eastern spirituality and > religion into Western metaphysics. 

Ham) As I've said before, I'm using quotations from other sources only 
to support MY thesis, not to merge disparate views or ideologies. 

Chin) I’ll give you that, but the point still remains you are getting 
the reader confused, and possibly yourself from mixing East and West, 
in that there are totally different developmental processes that are 
opposed to each other, as well as with science and religion. 

Ham) Individuals create the finite "images" of reality, not reality 
itself. The reality they confront is the Essence from which they were 
separated at creation; they sense Essence as their Value but are 
cognizant of it only as beingness. Thus, the value they extract from 
Essence relates to the self/other dichotomy. The dichotomy is not so 
much "how we think" but "how we are." Specifically, value sensibility 
is an affirmation of the Essence lost to the negated self in creating 
the dichotomy. I really don't know if Eastern spirituality supports 
this ontology, but it is the premise of my philosophy. 

Chin) IF we were this “negated self.” 

Ham)  Once again, Chin, I'm not trying to "fit all meanings" of 
Essence. The Greek philosophers defined "essences" (in the plural) as 
the nature of various classes or phyla of objects and creatures. The 
existentialists defined essence as Being. Physicists may define 
essence as quarks, energy, strings, or fields -- I'm not sure and they 
aren't either. My definition is the uncreated, absolute source of what 
IS. 

Chin) The physicists use the Greek term quintessence to point at dark 
energy, which may have fallen to Hawkings Radiation, just as Newton’s 
gravity now is believed to have created our solar system. As you said, 
these change as new information comes in. 

This may be my own “predetermined prejudice,” that no one can know 
creation, and therefore any philosophy that defines creation is 
accepted only on faith. 

Ham)  Socrates said: "Know thyself. ...The unexamined life is not 
worth living." This is probably the wisest maxim ever offered by a 
philosopher. 

Chin) Maybe next to “They think they know but don’t, at least I know I 
don’t know.” 

Ham) Thanks for the Eckhart web page which is a really good analysis 
that I hadn't seen before. The one objection I have to the quoted 
statement is the phrase "cause of itself" as applied to "the 'I' that 
knows itself." Human beings create their objective world, direct 
their "becoming in the world", and even change the world to suit their 
needs. But man is not a 'causa sui'; he does not create himself. 

Chin) Per Eckhart, it would be God who created man, no? 

Ham) Yes, I've read both ZMM and LILA, but do not use them as 
philosophical textbooks. I believe Pirsig is an original thinker and a 
fine novelist, and I welcome his non-materialistic approach to 
philosophy. My major problems with Pirsig are that he assiduously 
avoids metaphysics, is paranoiac about theism and transcendence, and 
fails to offer a meaningful role for man in his philosophy. . . 

Chin) The role of man would be a simple one, live you life in Quality. 
Any improvement in the world will come from this concentration on 
Quality. Quality is not dependent on other beliefs, and doesn’t, IMHO, 
need metaphysics to qualify the benefits of Quality in life, nor does 
it need to concentrate on creation, as man is what man is, man came 
from where man came from, and the only matter would be to improve the 
lot of man (including woman as an equal;) It’s too simple for 
metaphysics, but he does qualify his reasoning and explain the path in 
which he came to believe this. It works. It would not be avoiding 
metaphysics, but the degree of metaphysics needed. 

Ham continues -- Also, I think I know what Value is; but, like Value, 
Quality is relative to the person who evaluates it. I do not see 
Quality by any definition as a non-conditional entity that can stand 
by itself as the primary reality. 

Chin) This would be due to a belief man needs guidance in order to be 
moral. It’s stands pretty well on its own if you simply think “Is 
there Quality in everything?” 

Does God have Quality? Does the Buddha have Quality? And, if you think 
of the universe as anything other than accidentally designed, does the 
universe have Quality? 

Everything our understanding is built on, from the stories of the 
Bible all the way out to the stories passed on by the American Indians 
is the Quality inherent in the heroes of these stories, analogous of 
how we should be, and if not what we have become, the direction we 
have followed to get there. 

You say a Tenth Grader cannot understand your philosophy. A Second 
Grader could understand Pirsig’s. Which would be more beneficial to 
society? How would your “primary reality” help to evolve society, 
humanity? 

Yes, I like Quality, but do not worship it -- it is not needed or 
required. 

Chin