[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

[Squonk]:
> Hi Ham,
> According to the moq DQ is integral to everything so it must be
> integral to the individual life.  I don't assume this reqires an arrow
> of time, but it insists upon an arrow of value evolution.
> I agree that time is a construct. The moq would say it is a pattern
> of intellectual values i suppose.

I was a bit opaque in my response because I didn't want to burden you with 
metaphysical details, particularly as my views differ from those of RMP. 
While it is true that everything derives from Essence ("Ham's DQ"), this 
doesn't mean that experienced "things" and the "selves" that experience them 
are "integral" to Essence.  In my view, only Value is integral to Essence, 
whereas nothingness and selfness make up the difference between 
being-in-the-world and the source of that being.

Since you're familiar with Heidegger and Sartre, you understand the meaning 
of "dasein" as used by the existentialists. (Although Essentialism is 
metaphysically opposed to existentialism, I admit to borrowing several of 
their terms.)  They were stuck, as I believe Pirsig is, by the precept 
"existence precedes essence."
Existentialists do not allow themselves to entertain the concept of a 
primary source beyond being.  Pirsig has taken a stab at it, but Quality 
(dynamic or otherwise) is only an experienced attribute of being,  As a 
result, the MoQ is all about existence and nothing about its uncreated 
source.  What distinguishes Essentialism as a metaphysical thesis is that it 
transcends the "otherness" of being by positing Essence as the 'not-other' 
source.

> I get you. I encountered the objection that only agents can assign
> value more than any other in formal study. The closest official release
> for it is John Leslie's extreme axiarchism, which says the universe exists
> because it is best that it does so, and this position is derived from 
> Plato.
> An immediate problem i have with essence is that it is an intellectual
> construct. It is a theory?

Isn't a theory also an intellectual construct?  Plato may well have 
attributed his "best that it does so" teleology to the gods.  Pirsig tells 
us that Quality accounts for a moral universe.  Yet, neither philosophy 
outlines an ontogeny for existence or a reason for its creation.  I'm not 
acquainted with Leslie's "axiarchism", but the absence of a plausible 
ontology is probably what inspired Hegel and Heidegger to develop 
existentialism around Being as its primary source.  It remains the 
predominant philosophy of postmodernism.

> My only problem now is wishing to leave because of boredom.
> There are only so many times i can read the same thing over and
> over again (and allot of it has been repeated for the last 9 years)
> before i begin to want to get back to music. For some reason,
> i never become bored of that.

We apparently have music in common.  I, too, have been wanting to get back 
to it, but at my age the challenge of philosophy has assumed the higher 
ground.  I hate to admit that as a young man with little musical talent I 
studied theory and composition.  Now, as an old man with minimal training in 
philosophy, I'm writing on metaphysics.  Life takes odd turns, doesn't it? 
But don't give up on philosophy, Squonk.  Your thinking is fundamental, and 
you're open to new ideas, both of which are assets to the philosopher.  Ron 
and Craig, among a few others here, are also intuitive free-thinkers, 
although their concepts tend to be warped by the MoQ hierarchy.

> Another problem looms for me: There doesn't seem to be much
> before 'man' on this account.

That's because it is man who objectivizes value as an evolutionary 
multiplistic system.  Remember, I'm an anthropocentrist.  Being in the world 
is man's construct.  The value-sensible individual is the locus of his 
reality.  Since what exists is no more than what is experienced, the 
universe begins and ends with experience.

> I see. I'm finding this a little tricky to see in my head.
> I shall need to work on it.

You won't see it in your head.  You'll conceptualize it.  Philosophy is more 
than words and logic.  It's largely intuitive.  For example...

I gave Platt a koan to ponder based on his assertion that "a universe is 
better than no universe."  I asked him to meditate on that statement until 
he could justify it in a way that made sense to him.  Heidegger and some 
others have asked "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  That's how I 
got the insight for my philosophy of Essence.  Why don't you try this 
apprach as your "thought experiment 2"?  You may be pleasantly surprised at 
the results.

Incidentally, Platt hasn't gotten back to me.  Maybe you will.

Good luck,
Ham