[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Ron, from Ham --


> Whoa, fella'!  You're racing off far beyond the starting gate when you
> say difference is "composed of...".  There is no composition in oneness
> or nothingness.

[Ron]:
> They are compositions of logic, of intellectual concepts. Just as much
> as electrons and atoms.

Is it your belief that logic and intellectual concepts constitute the 
primary reality?  That they
always have been present, even without anything to realize them, or that 
they emerged out of nothingness?   In that case, of course, ultimate reality 
is not a monism but is differentiated through and through.

[Ron]:
> Primary reality is immediate experience, I follow Pirsig in this regard.
> I also agree that intellectual extension beyond this into cosmological
> concepts is a tool for understanding this experience. With this in mind
> I and RMP take a physical cosmological approach.  A method which
> bases its concepts on observable phenomena rather than intuitive logic.

How do you explain "immediate experience" in the absence of a sentient 
agent?  Are you saying that the experience of "intellectual concepts" acn 
occur without a cognizant subject?

[Ron]:
> I think conceptually you view space as a vacuum and I do not.
> I conceptualize space as a fabric. I do not relate the term space
> with Nothingness.

Space is extension in three dimensions.  If you don't view it as "empty", 
then you are not conceptualizing it as nothingness, but as the things 
contained it.  I see this as misleading.  One normally speaks of the 
physical universe in terms of what exists, not as extension filled with 
objects.  Nothingness does not exist, although it is what separates the 
atoms, planets, and galaxies in space.

[Ron, concerning Essentialism and the 3 paradoxes]:
> Somehow it feels like you are cherry picking what aspects of
> intellectual constructs that best suit your needs to expound
> Essentialism. You dismiss logical paradox as intellectual
> constructs, yet you utilize the very same logic to prove
> Essentialism. I'm not sure the academic society will let
> you get far with that.  It does not contradict Pirsig because
> he does not find it central. He places it as one of many intellectual
> patterns.  My personal feelings are that we all relate to experience
> uniquely. Spiritually I believe in the conscious development of that
> relationship.

Naturally I discuss those concepts which are best explained by my 
hypothesis.  That's an author's perogative.  Certainly Pisig did the same. 
I cannot "prove" Essence any more than Pirsig can prove his Quality.  And I 
am not dismissing paradoxes; I'm simply saying that most paradoxes, such as 
causality being linked to a 'first cause', are the result of man's finitely 
limited perspective.  That Pirsig does not consider primary reality 
"central" to his thesis only proves his weakness as a philosopher.  Finally, 
you speak of experience as if it were something you "relate to", whereas I 
understand it as a verb: that is, you and I experience that which is "other" 
to us.  I fail to see how you (as a pattern of value, by your definition) 
can dance in a relationship with nothing but value.

Apparently, you believe experience is out there in space somewhere to be 
grasped by the senses, whereas I view it as the existential reality we 
construct from Value.  Truthfully, I don't believe you or Mr. Pirsig are 
dealing with metaphysical reality at all.  What you are calling reality is 
an epistemological paradigm of physical existence.

Obviously we are not on the same wavelength here.  Either I don't comprehend 
your cosmogeny or you don't understand my ontogeny.  Either way, we're not 
connecting intellectually.  Unless you can provide a brief explanation of 
what you think experiential existence reduces to -- what ultimate reality 
is -- I'm afraid further discussion is futile.

Sincerely,
Ham