[MD] Mereological nihilism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Marsha --

> What is your definition of nihilism?  I'm rather tired of you using
> the word for its psychological and emotional effect.  What is your
> definition of nihilism?   It seems to me it represents the limitation
> of human knowledge.  Why should that be considered so devastating?

I don't define nihilism in any special way, nor do I use the word for 
"psychological or emotional effect", although it seems to have affected you. 
Nihilism doesn't relate to the "limitation of knowledge", unless empirical 
knowledge is fundamental to your philosophy.  Pirsig's MoQ certainly doesn't 
hold that position, and I have always maintained that empiricism (i.e., 
logical positivism) is limited to experiential knowledge.

"Mereological" (compositional) nihilism is an obscure term that applies to 
most ontologies that are based on a primary reality, such as Quality or 
Essence.  The general Nihilism reference in Wikipedia provides a very clear 
definition:

"Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which 
argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is 
without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential 
value."

This article also notes that Heidegger had a "special meaning" for nihilism, 
which was philosophy's failure to acknowledge "being" as the fundamental 
reality.  The existentialists took this to mean that being precedes essence, 
and Sartre based his "Being and Nothingness" on this premise.  To me this is 
nihilism, for if essence evolves from being it has no more value than being 
itself, which is to call existence the primary reality.  I reject this view, 
as I believe Pirsig does also, although making a metaphysics of Quality 
leaves being and existence in an ontological limbo, along with meaning and 
purpose.

By equating Quality to Value, which is a semantic (non-metaphysical) 
equivalent, and attributing morality to the physical world (rather than to 
subjective sensibility), Pirsig has conveniently dismissed the meaning and 
purpose of life.  In addition, his aversion to spirituality and rejection of 
a transcendent reality seems to be telling us that "human existence is 
without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential 
value."  I'll let you decide to what extent my offensive term is applicable.

Best regards,
Ham