[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Laird -- 

Since you apparently want to continue this dialogue, I hope you don't mind
that I've changed the title to Essentialism.  (Actually, ALL of my
discussions on this forum relate my philosophy to the MOQ.)

Defending the axiom "My DQ = your Nothingness", you said:

> I interpret DQ as "just happening", or "emergence from chaos
> or nothing", with the latching of SQ doing the differentiation
> into patterns. With DQ alone, we can maintain no patterns, after all.

Are you assuming that chaos equates to nothing, or are you just not sure?
If nothingness is the primary source, it does not have the potential to
create "something".  That's the old 'ex nihilo' fallacy.  Therefore, the
source must at least have Potentiality.  Why not give it the benefit of the
doubt and assume that its potential is INFINITE?   (Another application of
Occam's razor -- we needn't limit the Source to finitude.)

Now, I don't speak patternese.  I assume "differentiation into patterns"
means creating the finite objects of existence.  This, in my view, is a
function of the intellect working with values.  Based on Pirsig's
epistemology that Value/Quality is pre-intellectual, and experience defines
the objects, I'm saying that Value is what we "sense", and from this
sensation the intellect constructs its reality.   However, you say that the
intellect has to "latch onto" something called SQ in order to differentiate
the patterns.  William of Ockham will be rolling over in his tomb!  What is
the necessity of this intermediate step?  Can you explain to me what "the
latching of SQ" means?

> My Quality = your Essence

> The MoQ considers Value/Quality as unconditional and inherent to
> everything - DQ, SQ, the whole works. So I'll go with "Quality is
> unconditional".

I don't consider Value unconditional because it is always relative to
something else.  Which is why Value/Quality does not equate to Essence which
is truly unconditional.  What has Value to you is either desirable,
important, useful, or excellent (to use its synonyms) compared to whatever
determines your standard.  Therefore, neither Quality nor Value is
unconditional.

> My Existence = your Difference

[Ham, previously]:
> Insofar as Difference (the function of Nothingness) is
> the ground of Existence, the equation holds true.

 [Laird]:
> This statement I have a hard time discerning, because
> you use Existence in the definition. By basis of the
> functional equation, this becomes circular logic... I
> think I could translate this to "Existence = the whole
> of SQ (the function of DQ), which is the ground of
> differentiation". And I think I'd agree.

I use Existence in my comment to show that it is contingent on Beingness
which is "shot through with nothingness" (to use Sartre's expression).
Nothingness is the differentiator; it is what separates every object and
every observer in Existence.  If that understanding of Existence is what you
call "the whole of SQ," then what is DQ, and why do we even need it?

> My rational existence = your Existence

 [Ham, previously]:
> I guess I don't understand your use of "rational" here.
> Is your "rationalization" what I would call "intellection"?

 [Laird]:
> I think I'm using it the same way you use intellection.

Then what is the difference between your "rationalized" or
"intellectualized' existence and Existence (cap E)?

> If each person's universe is relative to each other's,
> we end up with a countless array of different, subjective
> universes.  For science to have any usefulness, this
> position must be untenable.

Not so. The objective aspects of the universe are empirically definable and
universally knowable.  From a quantitative point of view, we are all aware
of the same universe.  Valuistically, however, the qualitative aspects are
sensed individually.  Thus, the empirical "orange" has a different value to
me than it has to you.  Likewise, the totality of my reality is unique to
me; your reality is unique to you.  Science cannot measure psycho-emotional
values.  It only deals with objective values.

> I wouldn't call my view of the universe literal - literalism
> is fundamentalist SOM, and I see the universe as a
> collection of existents prior to the "intellection" that
> creates SOM. The subjects and objects are thoroughly
> relational, and intellectual relativism gives us the power
> of abstraction. But I reject a fundamental relativism in
> the root of my cosmology. I might have some agreement
> with existentialist viewpoints, but I think I'm quite far
> from logical positivism.

What you describe is not the Pirsigian view but existentialism.
Existentialism holds that the beingness of existence is primary to its
essence.  If you believe existence precedes Essence, you are an
existentialist by definition.

> As far as the necessity of a Primary Source... Without a
> primary source there cannot be any "something", and that
> would reduce the universe (either as it is, or as we know it)
> to the realm of absolute nothing, making our own existence,
> intellectualization, and, well, everything, a paradox.

You admit that there could not be "things" without a primary source, which
would "reduce the universe to absolute nothing".  But could there be
conscious awareness?  Could a universe exist without awareness?
Specifically, could the appearance of reality occur without the
subject/object dichotomy?  Until you answer these questions, I shall have to
classify you as an existentialist.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Best regards,
Ham