[MD] dualism redux (to Ron)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos --

Some time has elapsed since our last battle :-)

You wrote to Marsha and Case:
> If one is using "good" in its absolute sense to refer
> to DQ, then "no good" doesn't just mean bad it means
> non existent. Worse than that it means, not the thing
> that is already "not other" before existence/non-existence
> gets defined. But our groundstuff encompases everything
> so that just isn't allowed.
>
> Ham - can I ask your opinion here:
> I'd like to establish how a hypothetical "absolute bad"
> might relate to essentialism (I know the question doesn't
> fit properly).

Actually it's an important question, if only because Pirsig seems to
acknowledge only the "positive" side of Quality [Value].  He must be looking
at reality through rose-colored glasses.  All evaluation pits the "good"
against the "bad".  How else would we understand Excellence?  Moreover,
these value judgments are all subjective: What I see as superb you may call
mediocre, and vice versa.  As an essentialist, I view the total aggregate
Value perceived by each individual as his/her "value complement".  This
complement is the individual's "valuistic bond" with the Source.  In other
words, it represents (in existential terms) his essential identity.

You also asked:
> What is "absence of essence"?

Invalid question.  There is no absence of Essence.  Essence is absolute
"IS-ness".  Nothoingness is a negation of an absolute Source.  So,
metaphysically speaking, nothingness doesn't exist -- either in the physical
universe or in Essence.  Nothingness is the ground of experiential
existence.  That's why I say that existence (beingness) is illusory.  This
is not to imply that it has no meaning or purpose.  It's man's reality, and
we couldn't "be" here without it.  Its purpose is to make value aware, to
create an independent perspective of Essence (i.e., cognizant awareness)
whereby its Value can be realized autonomously.  By reclaiming this value
incrementally throughout the life-experience, we each redeem our essential
identity and (conceivably?) "refresh" the absolute sensibility of Essence in
the process.

Thanks for the perceptive question, Jos.  (Now we'd better prepare ourselves
for the reaction.  MoQists can get mean at times :-)

Best regards,
Ham