[MD] Aristotle & DQ

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

> I fail to see the hubub, bub.
> your gripe with MOQ. seems to be one of terminology.

No, it isn't the terminology, bub.  It's the fundamentals (or lack of them).

But since you raise the question of terminology with your own MoQ 
equivalents, I'll take this opportunity
to correct your list as it applies to Essentialism.  My comments are 
enclosed in brackets.

[Ron]:
> DQ = essent    [If DQ is the primary source, the essentialist equivalent 
> would be ESSENCE.]
>
> subject/object (static) = being-aware    [The relation of subjective 
> awareness to objective beingness is anything but "static".  It emerges, 
> changes, grows, and assumes various identities.  Definitely  DYNAMIC.]
>
> Value = Value    [Yes, but does Value = Quality, ie., the primary source? 
> If so, Value does not define ESSENCE.]
>
> Essentialism = realizing oneness through dichotomy     [Realizing VALUE 
> from the dichotomy, with the understanding that it is man's perspective of 
> Essence (Oneness).]
>
> MOQ = realizing oneness through complex system theory Pointing out how
> rationalizing through
> dichotomy may leaves out aspecs of reality.   [No equivalent in 
> Essentialism.  No need for complex system theory, no "aspects" of finite 
> reality are essential except for the value it represents.]

[Ron continues]:
> which is what this argument is about. You seem to be concerned with
> focus on source.  Pirsig focuses on the phenomenal.

I focus on the source because the phenomenal is common knowledge.  We beat 
it to death.  So does Science.  Philosophy gives us a means of getting 
beyond the "otherness" of differentiated reality.  Why not avail ourselves 
of this perspective?

> Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to understand complex systems
> which is what reality is composed of.

Since we construct our reality from value, reality can be as complex as the 
intellect makes it.  Making reality complex would seem to be the goal of the 
quantum physicists.  If you think reality is "composed of complex systems," 
you'd better check your MoQ Manual.  Pirsig says it's composed of Quality, 
"...the primary empirical reality".

> Essentialism is great but how does it define source any better than
> Dynamic Quality?  Any way I turn it I still have a hard time
> understanding how Essentialism furthers any of these concepts
> short of re-defining them.

Then your knowledge of Essentialism is superficial at best.  You folks are 
still debating about whether DQ is patterned or unpatterned, whether it's 
energy or modality, whether it emerges from SQ or vice-versa, or whether it 
may be simply a euphemism for goodness.  Obviously, it hasn't been defined 
very well, and its author refuses to define it.  In my philosophy, Essence 
is defined as "The ultimate, necessary, unconditional, negational Source 
and/or 'whatness' of reality."  I submit that this is a fairly complete 
definition for something whose nature is indescribable.

> If you could in some way basically list the advantages of Essentialism
> over MOQ then I think you'd win more of us.

I could supply a list, but it would raise more questions than answers. 
Actually I've been asked to do this before, and it hasn't satisfied the 
questionner.

In plain words, Essentialism is founded on a primary, uncreated source whose 
potentiality is absolute.  All knowledge, and all awareness, is proprietary 
to the individual.  Since meaning and purpose is to be found in the relation 
of the proprietary self to the absolute source, life has no meaning to the 
individual who does not acknowledge the source.  Because he is estranged 
from Essence, man is an autonomous creature whose free choices are based on 
his value-sensibility rather than on biological instinct.  This makes him 
the free agent and choicemaker of his world.  Experience is "being aware of 
Value", which is to say, man makes Value aware as Being.  Being-aware is a 
dichotomy whose contingencies are inextricably bound together by Value.  By 
realizing the Value of our estranged Essence, we incrementally "dissolve" 
the dichotomy and approach the essential Oneness from which we are all 
separated at birth.

This brief synopsis is not going to win any "converts" to Essentialism. 
However, it does set forth those fundamental concepts which are missing from 
the MoQ; namely, a primary source (creator), the dichotomy of actualized 
existence (rejected by Pirsig as "dualism"), the significance of the 
individual (as opposed to the "collective"), value as man's relational link 
to Essence (rather than an esthetic source of patterns and levels), and 
man's role in the universe (as compared to simply recognizing that "some 
things are better than others").

For more elaboration on these concepts, you'll have to read my webpage 
thesis at www.essentialism.net , at least until my book comes out.

Thanks for your questions and list of equivalent terms.

Regards,
Ham