[MD] Mereological nihilism

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --

> What do you know and how do you know it???  Below you wrote,
> "You must understand that the philosophy I call Essentialism originated
> with me and reflects my own concept of reality."  Without a method of
> testing, a "reasoned hypothesis" may just be a wild guess.

What is it about an original concept that troubles you?

If you analyze any hypothesis, all it's saying is "let's suppose the
following is true."  Your acceptance or rejection of it is a judgment call.
Is that a mortal sin or a perversion of philosophy in your view?  Hasn't
Pirsig done the same thing?  He's saying: Let's call reality Quality and see
if we can divide it up so that it can account for what we experience.
That's a hypothesis, Marsha, even if you don't recognize it.

A wild guess?   No, it's an "educated" guess, because it's based on some 
knowledge of previous theories and is supported by the same kind of logic. 
That makes it plausible and gives it credibility for those who study 
metaphysics.  Unlike scientific theories, the fundamental premises of a 
metaphysical hypothesis can't be tested or proved empirically.  But the 
conclusions are testable by our own experience.  Thus, Pirsig asks: Do we 
not all seek goodness in our world?  If morality is recognizing that some 
things are better than others because they have a higher level of quality, 
then Quality can be our primary empirical reality.  Looked at this way, all 
we're really doing by experiencing something is assessing its quality.

Now that's an over-simplification of the MoQ, but it's enough of a paradigm 
by which to compare Essentialism.  Ham says: Nothing comes from nothingness, 
so what exists must be derived from a primary source.  The unprovable 
hypothesis is that this source is absolute and uncreated.  That's an 
application of Occam's razor which states that  "entities should not be 
multiplied unnecessarily", meaning that the simplest of theories is 
preferred to the more complex.  It gets rid of the need for an infinite 
regression of prior sources.

Then, Ham says, experience demonstrates that everything in existence is 
differentiated and relative, including the experiencing subject.  What if 
the primary source is the absolute synthesis of all difference?  Cusanus 
theorized that possibility and actuality are co-dependent in existence but 
coincide in the non-contradictory Source.  Hegel postulated that "the 
(inward) negation of Essence is manifested in its (outward) appearance, and 
the completion of this identity between inward and outward is Actuality." 
I've woven these theories into a metaphysical rationale for Essence.  In 
short, it asserts that actualized existence is a negation (i.e., experienced 
reduction) of Essence whereby a sensible agent (the self) experiences the 
value of its beingness in terms of finite things and events that appear in 
the world.

Preposterous? Incredible? Fantastic?  Maybe.  That's for my readers to 
decide.  My own view is that it is no more fantasy than the MoQ, which by 
rejecting a metaphysical source has neither a logical foundation nor an 
implied purpose to support it.

> I cannot say that this little "talk" hasn't been helpful.  Yet, I have 
> this
> strange desire to paint a woman holding a whip.  [Blackbird fly,
> Blackbird fly... Into the light of the dark black night.]
>
> It is the time of the dark moon.  Is it a snake or a rope?

Sado-masochism again?  You seem to have a fascination for this bizarre 
behavior, Marsha.  Have you by any chance been reading the Marquis de Sade 
lately? ;-)

Peace and Love,
Ham