[MD] Tit's

[Ham Priday]

Marsha --

> Does 'experience' tell us anything other than its value is good, bad, or 
> neutral?  Even the idea that an experience has a beginning, a middle and 
> an end is a part of the 'designs by us'
> process, a process where experiences get reified and define
> into recognizable patterns.

Experience is the source of all knowledge about our reality.  So, when I 
present my ontology as "reasonable" to an existentialist like Krimel, I have 
to put experience in the forefront of any theory or concept under 
discussion,  You'll note that he will readily accept the views of 
experimental researchers like Piaget or Jill Bolte-Taylor, for example, but 
finds the mystical teachings of Nagarjuna foreign to his perspective.

You're right, of course, that the experiential world is a "designs by us" 
system, in that that we construct the patterns of our reality from value. 
Yet, this concept defies common sense and is so foreign to the empirical 
mind that it is treated as fantasy.  Its unfortunate that Pirsig failed to 
stress the individual as the "designer", leaving us with the impression that 
patterns directly relate to Quality and need no cognizant agent.

I've found that the only way to get Essentialism across is by showing that 
the fundamental assumptions are reasonable, or at least as reasonable as the 
assumptions that support the commonly held worldview.  Perhaps the most 
fundamental argment of all is the principle that nothing comes from 
nothingness.  When you consider that this principle is the root premise of 
philosophy, religion, mysticism, and physical science, it must be 
reasonable.

Thanks, Marsha.

Essentially yours,
Ham