[MD] Flying Spagetti Monsters

[Ham Priday]

Laird --

I'll go directly to your syllogisms, since they define the terms that
establish our respective ontologies:

> My DQ = your Nothingness

I trust this is meant to express an assumed functional equation, rather than
a descriptive one (RBP would scream).  It suggests that the function of DQ
is to divide and differentiate, which is what my Nothingness does.  I
believe DQ is Pirsig's "essence" insofar as he treats it metaphysically.  I
think he would say that it is Experience which differentiates DQ into levels
and patterns.

> My Quality = your Essence

If Quality is unconditional, it's a valid equation.  However, like Value,
Quality is always experienced conditionally -- i.e., relative to a
particular experience.

> My Existence = your Difference

Insofar as Difference (the function of Nothingness) is the ground of
Existence, the equation holds true.

> My rational existence = your Existence

I guess I don't understand your use of "rational" here.  Is your
"rationalization" what I would call "intellection"?  In my thesis I use the
term "objectivizing" for the differentiating process, as opposed to the
intellectualized objects themeselves.  Is this what you mean?

> The relativism of reality is my first and most obvious
> problem.  And I think the answer is much simpler - we
> observe the same universe because we observe the same
> universe.  In my viewpoint, Existence, including
> non-rationalized being, is prior to sense and thus universal.
> By no means do I think that removes the necessity for a
> Primary Source, mind you.

Why do you see relativism as a complication or a problem?  Or, are you
referring to my universe being "relative" to yours?  I understand that you
view the universe as a literal, ineluctable reality.  That's the view of the
existentialists and logical positivists.  But surely you can't deny its
relational structure.  And, how do you interpret the Primary Source as a
"necessity" for the universe?

> When words are written in "proper" form (first letter
> capitalized), it implies a deeper interpretation of the
> standard meaning. That's why I call rational reality "existence".
> Working against the grammar pounded into me throughout
> grade school creates confusion not only for me but
> for the conveyance of my ideas to others.
>
> I see Existence (capital E) as the whole of SQ, actualized
> by DQ (the Source). Constantly reactualized and updated
> and changing, thanks to non-physical DQ. This relationship
> of DQ actualizing SQ is the source of "time" as we know it.

Okay, I'll conform to Existence (cap E) as the ":real or imagined" reality
and existence as your "rational" world.  But I still don't see the
distinction.  Also, I'm no student of the MoQ, but I don't think Pirsig
intended DQ to actualize SQ.  I think he suggested that this is the function
of Experience.

[Ham, previously]:
> Everything in existence is relative and differentiated -- 
> including the observing subject.  It's the primary
> characteristic of actualized reality.

[Laird]:
> I view time as pre-intellectual as well. Just like gravity,
> it's a phenomenon that we observe and put a name to,
> but the phenomenon exists regardless of our words.

I won't argue the point.  Let's just say that natural laws are cosmic
principles, and that among them is the experience of time, space, motion,
and change.

> My quoted paragraph below also shows I see DQ as
> primary and non-existent, but fundamentally intertwined
> with Existence in a codependent dance. Like your
> Nothingness/Essence approach.
>
> I'd agree that rational existence is only the experience
> (again, intellectual) of a differentiated physical reality.
> I don't view Existence (capital E) as primary because I think
> it's a bad description.  DQ, Essence, is "primary", but
> Existence is not secondary - without Existence, DQ would
> have nothing to work with and would ultimately degrade
> into true, pure, absolute nothing. A sort of strange
> codependent monism? Kind of an oxymoron, but I think
> that's just SOM talking.

 [Ham, previously]:
> The Pirsigians think I'm an SOMist, but I'm really not.
> If anything, I'm a "subjectivist".  We are the subjects
> who create our world of "objects" from our own subjectivity.
> If Essence is Absolute Sensibility, then proprietary awareness
> is differentiated (finite) sensibility.  The appearance of
> Finitude begins with Difference.

[Laird]:
> I'd agree with "subjectivist" and understand how it can be
> seen as SOM-ish. In comparison I spin the worldview of
> "our experience creates 'something'" to "we experience
> 'something'".  I think it explains the same stuff without all
> the complexities of negations, estrangements and
> fundamental illusion near the core.

It's really the "illusion" that troubles you, isn't it?  You want a fixed
concrete reality that won't disappear if you should turn away or leave this
world.  That's a perfectly normal position, the "most sensible" position if
you were to ask a scientist.  It's how we were designed to view it.  I'll
grant you that the MoQ and Essentialism are both a little weird in their
cosmologies.  It takes some getting used to.

> When I'm programming or building complex networks
> and I find myself having to build strange one-off traps
> to resolve what appears to be a logical inconsistency, it's
> a sign that I've cocked up a fundamental part of my design.
> Whe  I go back and revise my design, the end result is a far
> simpler and cohesive network or program. I get the same
> feeling when following your nest of negations,
> estrangements and illusions. I think my superposition of
> Existence into the framework unties a bunch of those
> logical knots.

Sort of like Occam's razor, eh?  Yes, I'd very much like to simplify my
theory and drop some of the troublesome dynamics.  So far, however, it has
been growing in complexity.  I'm looking for somebody without an ax to grind
to invalidate some of my fundamental assumptions.  (Not the Pirsigians,
though -- they're much too paranoic about defending the MoQ.)

> I aim for a broader philosophy that can describe more
> than The Universe As Exclusively Experienced By Humans.
> I find these constructs quite useful for broadening my
> perspective.

Well, you've come to the right forum.  Most of the people here insist that
the universe is experienced in some way by atoms, amoeba, trees, and
planets.  The fact that these entities are all objectivized by human
experience in the first instance doesn't seem to bother them.

I've enjoyed our discussion, Laird.  You articulate clearly and are
forthright with your points, which I appreciate.  Perhaps we can get beyond
spaghetti monsters and continue our discussion in some less tangled area ;-)

Cheers,
Ham