[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

Hello Squonk --

> Please read the following and consider how it may apply to
> your Essentialism if you have the time:
>
> Let us assume the following:
>
> 1. Pirsig has identified the shared experience of 'excellence'
>     in human affairs.
> 2. Following arguments presented by David Hume in his
>     'An Essay concerning Human understanding' he has elevated
>     this experience to a Cosmic principle.
>
> 3. Ham has identified the shared experience of abstract
>     intellectual discourse - specifically, concerning essence.
> 4. Following David Hume, Ham has elevated this experience
>     to a Cosmic principle.
>
> If these positions can be maintained, it may also be argued that
> 3 and 4 are specific examples of the more general 1 and 2.

I think I know what you're getting at, but I'll give you my candid opinion 
based on the proposed assumptions.  (I'll have something to say about the 
validity of the propositions later.)

Both arguments assume an "elevation of experience to a Cosmic principle", 
which an Essentialist would reject.  There is no logic by which one may 
impute an attribute of human experience to 'Divine Law', such as a cosmic 
principle.  I have made that abundantly clear in my thesis, as per the 
following examples:

"In the philosophy of Essence, laws and theories are accepted as constructs 
of the human reasoning process which do not necessarily reflect the true 
nature of reality."  "Essence is incomprehensible from the finite 
perspective."  "Indefinableness, as the mystics put it, traverses the limits 
of the indefinable in the sense of Aristotelian logic."  "The specificity of 
conscious sensibilia, including qualitative values like Goodness, Love, and 
Beauty, as well as the 'dynamic' or functional constructs by which 
experiential entities are objectivized ... are not identifiable with the 
uncreated source."  "Any philosophy that is founded on an existential 
attribute or property as opposed to a primary, undifferentiated source 
cannot logically claim metaphysical transcendence."  "Cosmological truth is 
not bound by the empirical 'proofs' that support our common illusion of an 
objective reality."

Having said that, I don't believe any philosopher or moralist can "identify 
the shared experience of excellence" or any other moral quality [#1].  One 
may measure Excellence quantitatively, as when grading a math exam or 
evaluating the reliability of a motorcycle; but experience is proprietary to 
the self, hence has no collective identity.

As for proposition #3, I don't understand the meaning of  "identified" as 
applied to "intellectual discourse".  Are you referring to conclusions 
reached by a majority of the participants, such as might be tabulated in a 
poll?  Or do you mean weighing the disparate views expressed and coming up 
with a mean or average opinion?  (I hope you're not insinuating that I'm 
structuring my philosophy to appease the majority.)

In any case, Hume is right that man's understanding of God is extrapolated 
from finite concepts, and any descriptive interpretation of the ineffable 
source is invalid.  I've presented my philosophy of Essence as a theory, 
with no claim that it is anything but a plausible hypothesis.  (It isn't 
intended as allegory or metaphor, either.)  But if it's really your 
assumption that I've defined a Cosmic principle on the basis of my own 
experience, show me an example and we can discuss it.

I hope this is the comparison you were looking for.

Regards,
Ham.