[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

Ron --

I enjoy dialoguing with you, mostly because you keep and open mind and 
strive to make disparate concepts accommodate the "general scheme" of 
Pirsig's philosophy.  This is also what I tried to do when I joined this 
forum back in 2002.  If I am to contribute anything to this discussion, 
however, it will be to point out the differences and what I see as the 
shortcomings of the MoQ with respect to my philosophy of Essence.  I 
sincerely hope you can  understand and appreciate my position, despite these 
differences.

[Ron]:.
> Cosmology was a subject of metaphysics before the Copernican
> Revolution.  Especially since Einstein's theories, cosmology has been
> primarily concerned with physics. There are many types of
> cosmologies, ranging from theism to Nihilism to idealism.  Pirsig
> prefers to let the reader parse that one out for themselves.

That is strange for a philosopher who wants to change society's perspective 
of reality.  Freedom of choice is commendable; but isn't it the 
philosopher's obligation to define the choices available and present his own 
ontology clearly so that his readers can make that choice?   I don't think 
Theism qualifies as a cosmology or an ontology, and Nihilism professes no 
beliefs.
That leaves cosmology (as derived from empirical data by Science) and 
ontogeny (metaphysical theories posited by various philosophers).

> In the Metaphysics of Quality it rejects no one on the basis
> of their cosmology in order to utilize the author's work.
> Whereas Essentialism does.  What you and theism do not
> seem to understand is that you are both dealing with an
> educated audience that does not require an educated individual
> to tell them what it all means anymore, in fact, they resent it.
> Which is why Christianity is in decline.  Free will, where it
> matters most, is stifled.by universal concepts of meaning and
> purpose.  Essentialism can explain free agency but it does
> not allow for it. This is the problem I see.

Tell me where Essentialism stifles free wilI.  Do you think including a 
hypothesis to account for the creation (experience) of the universe makes my 
philosophy "universal"?   Had I omitted it, you would complain that it was 
incomplete.  I do not "force" my concepts on anyone; like Pirsig, I 
encourage the reader to select those ideas that are meaningful  for him or 
her.  So I fail to see how my worldview denies anyone the freedom to decide 
for himself.

The point I have tried to make about Freedom is that it can only exist where 
the cognizant agent is independent of external authority, including the 
primary source itself.  Because Essence is absolute and perfect Oneness, it 
needs no freedom.  If we were "pieces", "emanations" or "patterns" of 
Essence, we could not be free creatures.  I've made the same point about 
Quality.  If the universe is intrinsically moral, and we are its patterns, 
there would be no immorality or evil in existence -- more importantly, no 
need to choose our values.  This is clearly not the case, so that "being 
made of Quality" makes individual freedom logically impossible.

The universe is amoral IN ORDER THAT the value agent can freely choose what 
is good or bad for itself, relative to its source and its world of 
difference.  This is what I see as man's role in life.  It's the only way 
freedom and morality make sense.  Ultimately, the individual self reclaims 
the value estranged from him at creation, completing the circle of 
existence.  Surely you don't equate this with Theism?

> Then why not let them develop their own cosmology?
> MoQ states the very same thing each individual must
> discover the meaning.  Only it drops the notion of
> immanent primary source on anthropomorphic grounds.
> What's the big beef then? You are certainly free to subscribe
> to the MoQ with or without your cosmological preferences.
> That's why it leaves certain aspects undefined.

I have no "beef" with Pirsig.  At the same time, leaving the ontogeny undone 
on the pretense that the reader would otherwise "not be free" to work out 
the details seems silly.  The result is that the author's readers are 
confused, come to conflicting conclusions, and argue day and night about 
what he really meant.  This does not bode well for Pirsig's legacy as a 
philosopher.

> Science offers theories based on observed phenomena where
> you offer absolute source from intuitive reason. Science leaves
> the door open for competing theories, Essentialism's source is
> absolute and non-negotiable.

Excuse me, but that's plain nonsense.  Science "leaves the door open" 
because it doesn't have the answers, and never will.  I don't claim to have 
the answers, either.  Instead, I present a thesis for consideration which 
accounts for creation, acknowledges physical reality as differentiated 
experience, is consistent with the ex nihilo principle, and suggests man's 
purpose imn an anthropomorphic universe.  Essentialism represents the 
personal belief system of a scientifically educated individual who has spent 
seven decades of his life in the quest for understanding.  I offer it on a 
"take it, in whole or in part, or leave it" basis.  What is there to 
"negotiate"?

> Pirsig rails against the logic that employs the axiom of
> excluded middles. You exalt it and use it to build your
> position. It is a convention used to gain a measure of
> certainty in a world of flux.

The only "excluded middle" that I have violated is spelled out in Cusanus'
First Principle: "The first principle cannot be other either than an other 
or than nothing and likewise is not opposed to anything."  Paraphrasing this 
principle, I assert that "Essence is "not other", because it is not other 
than any [particular] other, even though "not-other" and "other" [once 
derived] are opposed."  While this precept "gains a measure of" security for 
the believer, I make no claim that "certainty" exists anywhere in the world.

> I always thought Essentialism was what Bo's SOL would look like if
> he bothered to set it out, for you do use subject object logic as
> Quality intellect very well. You do come very close to MoQ utilizing
> SOM.  You two could of done it, make the transition, if you were both
> able to compromise your positions but.....turns out it isn't needed
> after all.

>From my perspective Bo was too betoken with the Quality hierarchy to 
consider my metaphysical position, although he at least acknowledged  SOM as 
man's reality.  That such an accommodation "isn't needed" is a matter of 
opinion.  IMO, SOMETHING is needed to provide the MoQ with a metaphysical 
foundation.

Thanks for allowing us another round, Ron.  Please give some thought to the 
points I've made above about Freedom and what qualifies as a free agent.

Essentially yours,
Ham