[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Ham,

> [Ham]
> 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:
>   
>> [Laird]
>> 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.)
>
>   
[Laird]
I was characterizing DQ aka the Primary Source as emergence FROM chaos 
or nothing, but you're reading that I'm calling it "nothing". To tinker 
with your point anyway, I can't think of a greater potentiality than 
something emerging from "nothing", so in that respect "nothing" would 
have the greatest possible potentiality.


> [Ham]
> 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?
>
>   
[Laird]
"latching", "static latch" and other latch-phrases are littered 
throughout Lila and ZMM. Latching is the process of a Quality-event 
becoming static. I also did NOT say anything close to "intellect has to 
latch onto... SQ". Previously in this part of the conversation I said "I 
see Existence (capital E) as the whole of SQ, actualized by DQ (the 
Source)" - It would be SQ latching onto the fruits of DQ. I suppose you 
could call SQ "the 'becoming' of DQ."


>> [Laird]
>> 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".
>>     
>
> [Ham]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
You're looking at Value in terms of a numerable quantitative value. 
(capital) Value, innumerable, is the whole continuum of possible values. 
If that isn't squeezing in well, think of it in terms of mathematical 
set logic. It's like saying in mathematics that the set of Whole Numbers 
can be represented by a single constituent- say, 125. (metaphorically; 
all exceptions mere coincidence and no liability expressed or implied!) 
125 is a value, the set of Whole Numbers is Value.

What has Value to me can be either desirable or undesirable - high value 
or low value. High quality or low quality. Still Quality (the 
continuum). Definitely unconditional.


>> [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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> 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?
>
>   
[Laird]
We're in the (E|e)xistence definition problem once more. Existence 
(capital E) is what I call "the whole of SQ". existence (lowercase) is 
what I call the rationalized, the intellection, into your Existence. 
We've been over this, more mixing of terms going on.


>> [Laird]
>> 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)?
>
>   
[Laird]
Same as above. To quote my previous distinction between the two:
> > 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".
>
> > 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. 

>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
I think we're disagreeing on the definition of "relative". I see 
"relative" and "relational" as different concepts in a slight but very 
significant way. Unfortunately every dictionary I look at uses a cyclic 
definition for both which make the two indistinguishable and 
meaningless. I see relative as "similar, but not the same"... "alike in 
aspects but not a likeness"... a word that focuses on the 
difference-part of the root "relation". I see relational as "containing 
like components or aspects"... a word that focuses on the 
similarity-part of the root "relation". I suspect you use "relative" the 
way I use "relational".

That being said, I'm willing to scrap both of our statements since such 
an important root term is in contention that our meanings are jumbled 
into a flying spaghetti monster all their own. :)

One nit-pick, though... I'd say that based on your prior definitions 
(reality being a rationalized construct which you call Existence), you 
should revise your 'reality' statement to "the totality of my Existence 
is unique to me; your Existence is unique to you." It conveys a more 
concise and powerful message, and is more illuminating on your philosophy.

>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
Remember, I said "My Quality = your Essence". I might be missing the 
difference between the big and little E here, but I'll be so bold as to 
assume you meant Essence here. "beingness of existence (my Existence) is 
primary to its e(E)ssence (my Quality)"... No, Existence is not primary 
to its Quality; rather Quality is primary to Existence. I'm suggesting 
roughly (omit the "its") the converse of that statement.


>> [Laird]
>> 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.
>>     
> [Ham]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
Absolute nothing. No conscious awareness. Could a universe exist without 
it? Mu, conscious awareness is not a condition of the scenario. Could a 
universe exist when it is reduced to absolute nothing? Nope.

The "_appearance_ of reality" could not occur without the subject/object 
dichotomy - that's rationalization, intellect! But I've postulated that 
my pre-intellectualized reality occurs without the dichotomy of 
subject/object. But I think this is moot due to the just-above response 
eliminating the basis for the question.

> [Ham]
> Of course, I could be wrong.
>
>   
[Laird]
So could I. And chances are damn good that we're both wrong at least 
some of the time!
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>   
[Laird, in retrospect]
Looking through this again, I think we've reached the point of 
diminishing returns. We're starting to repeat old questions and 
statements, with a good deal of bits flipped and flopped along the way. 
It's been a great ride, but I (too?) am feeling we may be best stopping 
while we're ahead.

Much thanks for the conversation and patience, Ham!
-Laird