[MD] Essentialism

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

> MITMOAT, man is the measure of all things.
>
> I feel that there is a lot of conjecture in quantum theory
> because of the "disappearing" particals that seem to pop
> out and in of reality and are percieved to be in two places
> at once.  I feel this is due to the quantum string theory
> and what they are percieving is actually space being
> warped on a atomic level, that is the effect of Atoms
> (matter) moving through space(quantum string loops).

Whether we objectivize reality as particles, strings, wires, or energy,
what's important is that we are its awareness and not its substance.  In
separating awareness from Essence, negation makes Value the "divider".
Here's how I expressed this concept in an e-mail note to Arthur Witherall
earlier today.  He had asked me how a primary source could not be subject to
causality (i.e., "uncreated") and yet relate to -- be the ground of  -- 
existence.

"Your assertion that a 'cause' is an event in space/time is true from the
existential perspective.  It is also true that the ground of existential
reality must relate to its source.  I happen to see that ground as
nothingness.  But what I'm saying is that the ultimate source [Essence] is
not bound by relational conditions, that space/time is the mode of cognizant
awareness [being-aware] which is a psycho-intellectual reduction of Essence.

"The primary division [negation] is the separation of Awareness
(value-sensibility) from Otherness (Essence-value).  The appearance of
finite difference and relations is "caused by" the reductive (secondary)
negation of the individuated "being-aware".  Since Essence is indivisible
and irreducible, human beings do not experience Essence directly.  Instead,
they "sense" it as the value of otherness, and they intellectualize
(objectivize) it as discreet things and events in space/time."

> Back to essentialism, all of it seems to rest on the
> process of negation and grounding on the fact that
> we are certain of one thing, that we are aware.
> To go beyond this suggests spiritualism.
> And you are not for that as I gather.

I'm not "against" spiritualism (small "s"); I just don't accept it as a
metaphysical explanation.  Realizing value has been described as a spiritual
experience, and I'm definitely an advocate of philosophies that espouse a
valuistic reality.  In fact, it's what drerw me to Pirsig's philosophy.
What disappointed me about the MoQ is the abstraction of proprietary
awareness into a collective Intellect in order to eliminate the
subject/object duality.  I've been arguing that the S/O reality is
essential; we need this division in order to sense otherness as Value.

> The more I understand the more I see you just about
> have this Baby cinched air tight, the problem is in
> conveying in simplier terms this Idea.

Thanks, Ron.  I've made some progress, and these discussions have helped
enormously.  But you're right about needing to express it more simply.

> It's so easy to slide off track of exactly where you
> are going. Dancing with Hegel certainly gives the wrong
> impression of your destination.

I don't know that I've been dancing with Hegel.  What is the impression this
conveys?

> Case made the comment that Essentialism seems to be
> pulled from thin air, but I see you are pulling it from the
> fact of being aware and rationally deducing from there,
> using negation and in the volley of negation value emerges.
> I could be wrong.

No, that's quite perceptive and well stated.  It won't convince Case or
Arlo, because they're too caught up in causation and probability.  Their
main interest is the behavior of society rather than realization of the
individual.  I tend to think morality starts with the individual and his
values.  Unfortunately Pirsig has fostered the view that Value (Quality) is
the brass ring we grab onto in the merry-go-round of life, and he's borrowed
the mystical idea that awareness, the ring, and the merry-go-round are all
different patterns of Value.

I wanted to hear more about your interpretation of "What the bleep...", and
how you see it applying to my philosophy.  Feel free to express yourself -- 
I know nothing about quantum physics.

Essentially yours,
Ham