[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA --

[Ham]:
> God expects man to DISCOVER WHAT GOODNESS IS.
> Such is the difference between a philosophy that preaches
> morality without trying to define it and a philosophy
> that defines reality without trying to moralize it.

[SA]:
> So reality is not moral?

That's right.  We live in a balanced universe in which sensible values run
the gamut from good to bad, attractive to repulsive, beneficial to harmful,
harmonious to discordant, pleasurable to painful, etc., etc.

> Why would we moralize then?  What's the point in
> moralizing, if our moralizing has no niche in reality?
> Do you see what human beings do, as not important,
> not affective or an effect upon reality?  Thus, it's as
> if you're saying we human beings do 'things' such as
> moralize, but this is only in our 'human bubble world',
> thus, we live in a bubble from reality?

Think about it, SA.  If reality were perfectly moral, and you were part of
it, then you would be perfectly moral, too.  In fact, you would know nothing
of immorality.  NOW ask your question: Why would we moralize then?  How
could we moralize  -- distinguish goodness from badness -- if everything was
already moral?  The whole point of experiencing life as a free individual is
to realize the value of an amoral reality.

> If we are to "DISCOVER WHAT GOODNESS IS",
> then we either create goodness into reality, thus, we
> put goodness in reality, which also makes reality moral,
> by our moralizing it?  Are we that powerful, as to put
> morals into reality, yet, you say G-d wants us to discover
> goodness, so, this directive is from G-d, too, so ultimate
> reality is moral?

In order to discover what Goodness is, we must also know what Evil is.
Experiencing reality from a neutral (autonomous) position gives us the
opportunity to sample both.  That's how we use our gift of freedom to choose
our values and act upon them.  Yes, we are "that powerful" --   even
powerful enough to convert the value we sense in Essence to the finite
images we experience in space/time.

> Why do I circularize in my discussion, with question after
> question, when I try to logically, step by step, understand
> your statements?

I have no idea, SA.  Why DO you circularize your questions?  Why don't you
just ask them, without rephrasing my statements in your own words and adding
a question mark?  It would be much simpler for both of us.

> You probably will say I don't know why you do, [?]
> but continually many have difficulty with your thesis.
> Does anybody understand your thesis, without any blind
> faith?

I don't know.  Why don't you ask them?  You might have to explain what you
mean by "blind faith".  I don't think understanding a plausible concept
presented by someone with conviction requires faith any more than it
requires intellect, logic, and a receptive mind.

> As somebody who understand the MoQ, I say Pirsig
> says use intellect, too.  Actually he states we do use
> it, no question.  He says we have intuitional (the
> example of we all know what quality is) and spiritual
> drives (what is spiritual?  I take it to simply mean -
> togetherness, but my definition of spirituality is not
> totally intellectualized).  So, what's so different
> here, this is basic drives by human beings since the
> cave paintings, as far as recorded history goes, A?

Okay, we're playing "Pirsig Says" again.  And Pirsig says we use intellect.
Fine, agreed.  But when he also says he doesn't have to define Quality
because it's "intuitional", he's not using his intellect or ours.  He's
begging the question.  Intuitively I understand quality as the relative
value or workmanship of a thing.  That doesn't meet my requirements for "the
primary empirical reality of the world."  Why do you accept this assertion
without explanation, yet complain that my fully explained concept of Essence
requires blind faith?

> I think your only basic motive in your thesis,
> and all the explanations you come up with is to argue
> this point.  This statement by you, Ham, is, I
> believe, your basic motivation and underlying premise
> to argue true, and why you might argue against all
> other philosophies due to them NOT having a credible
> metaphysics, according to you (everybody has an
> opinion), to explain a source.  Is this your basic
> motive and argument against all views that you've come
> across in your lifetime, thus, as a motive, you've
> gained a will to come up with a credible (in your
> eyes) philosophy to explain a source, to put the
> concept of a source, within a field (philosophy) that
> can argue with strength, finally according to you, a
> source.

If I'm expected to reply to this editorial opinion, kindly state your
question.  (Otherwise, I'll have to plead the 5th :-)

[Ham, previously]:
> Quality -- a word that its author won't define much less
> explain in terms that are meaningful to the individual.

[SA]:
> Ham, when will you realize you will not ever know
> everything.  You say this, but you don't realize what
> you're saying, when you yourself have mentioned before
> that human beings don't know everything.

I never claimed to know everything, but I fail to see what that has to do
with
the above assertion.

> Your whole motive and premise in coming up
> with your own thesis, to have a knowledgeable argument
> about a source, not just a faith/belief, in a source.
> To make a source, not just involved in the religious
> realm, but in the realm of philosophy, which the
> latter involves not just faith, but a knowledge that
> exists in the human mind, thus, not just merely
> speculation based on belief, but an 'experience' that
> human beings have in our knowing, that can be argued,
> of a source.  Maybe this is where you are coming from,
> your motive?

Now you seem to be criticizing me for coming up with a "knowledgeable
argument" rather than a faith-based concept.  Or is it that you suspect my
"motive" is to postulate a knowledgeable argument?  Again, if you could
construct a simple, direct question, I would be happy to answer it.  Instead
you've composed a dissertation on what you think a philosophy should be and
(I guess) want to know if it's "where I'm coming from.)  I can't answer yes
or no, and I can't elaborate on an idea I don't understand.

> Moral decisions, don't forget those moral decisions
> are discerning what this universe is, the one with
> nature idea is morally decided upon, in such
> expressions as in what is more one with nature:
> dumping chemicals into a creek, or finding another way
> to rid of these chemicals from the local facility.
> The implication in the 'one with nature' is a decision
> based on what is the best way to live with nature,
> this implies nature has a Way we are live upon.  We
> choose the right Way, one of quality, and our moral
> decision will be on target with a way that is quality,
> as opposed to a way that is not of quality, thus, not
> morally a good decision, one that does not fit into
> Natures Way.  The guidance would be, what is nature's
> Way? - answer, the one that is quality.

Please don't get me involved in environmental issues.  Just because chemical
pollutants have an impact on Nature doesn't mean that it is a higher
priority issue than our national economy, the Iraqi war, illegal aliens, or
finding new energy sources.  All of these are "quality" issues.  It's a play
on words to suggest that Quality and Nature are synonymous, and that solving
pollution is the "right Way", while solving the outsourcing problem is the
"wrong Way."  That's more non-intellectual Pirsigian talk that isn't worthy
of my time here.

 [Ham, pereviously]:
> If everything is Quality and Goodness,
> exercising free choice serves no purpose except
> to foul up the moral system.

[SA]:
> The choices are made.  Is everything of quality?
> Biology and the inorganic have been long established,
> so, the quality that is held upon these levels has
> been long at work in establishing the quality.

"...the quality that is held ... has been at work in establishing the
quality"?
Does this make sense to you?  If you accept my use of Value, it is Man, not
Quality, who chooses what values will be applied to improving his world.

> social and intellectual levels are still argued, wars
> are fought based on these levels, undoubtly the other
> levels, too, but even those wars can be argued to be
> based on a person's moral decision, such as Hitler
> thinking Jews suck and blue eyes are the best.  The
> moral decisions humans make are in an effort to
> establish quality upon these social and intellectual
> levels.  Your thesis could still be philosophized, as
> long as it has quality, thus, is not something that
> has no quality.

Who decides if my philosophy has "quality"?  Me?  You?  The public?

> Your thesis would still fit onto the
> intellectual level arguing its' quality and why it is
> important to have not just belief, but a knowledge of
> a source.  That would boast the argument for a source
> out of the field of religion, that some have put
> religion only upon the social level, and thus, put a
> source upon the intellectual level, thus, according to
> the MoQ, morally more fit to exist since it has
> intellect in the understanding, not just social
> mimicing.

I appreciate your advice, SA, but you still have some false impressions of
what Essentialism is about. Man cannot have direct "knowledge of the
source"; he can only sense its value.  Any philosophy is based to some
extent on intuitive precepts, and is therefore a "belief system".  Also, I
don't acknowledge an "intellectual level" apart from the individual or a
"social level" apart from society.  The idea that something regarded as
intellectual is "morally more fit to exist" than something social makes no
sense to me.  We are all intellectual creatures who are also members of a
society.  I attempt to appeal to society through the intellect of my
readers.

I suggest you take another walk in the woods, SA.

Best regards,
Ham