[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[Ham Priday]

On 12/10/09, 5:49 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote;

> Hi Ham and all,
>
> I agree "a meeting of the minds" is not to be since I feel
> your interpretation of Dq/Sq is erroneous.
>
> How do you know that Existence is not essential to
> Absolute Essence?  You would have to claim absolute
> essence for yourself.  In order to know that you have to
> define 'existence' and then claim it is 'not essential to
> absolute Essence.' You deny that existence has meaning
> in relation to absolute essence, it is imaginary.  Your
> metaphysics does not exist.  Only the supposition that
> Essence needs no Existence exists.  Having said that
> you can claim anything you want for Essence and there
> is no way to question it. It is a matter of your Faith.
> Logic is useless.
>
> With Existence as the essential reality DQ/SQ then
> undefined Existence comes before reality and any meaning
> of reality has to acknowledge Existence, and is verifiable
> DQ/SQ.  Metaphysics, then, becomes a statement of the
> rational not the irrational "uncreated source".  I accept that
> I can¹t know everything.

I do not have to define existence because it is defined by experience. 
Since nothing comes from nothingness, anything that exists must have a 
source to create it.  My definition for the primary source is 
non-descriptive because I have no direct knowledge of it.  Yes, Absolute 
Essence is the ultimate reality I believe in.  But it isn't simply "a mettar 
of faith."  I can logically postulate that what transcends existence is not 
subject to the conditions of finitude (e.g., time, space, change, and 
differentiation).

> I find it tongue-in-cheek that you are posting to an MOQ site
> espousing DQ/SQ and then state:
>
> Ham
> "Moreover, your assertion that Realism is a judgment about the
> reality of existence" is a nihilistic take on the objectivist position.
> It begs the question of how any other reality can be valid.
>
> Joe
> I reject idealism in favor of pragmatism.  I accept realism in
> existence that accepts undefined DQ at a higher level than defined
> SQ.  Nothing has no existence.  However, the undefined DQ
> does exist. ...

I'll return your question: As a pragmatist, how do you know that something 
you can't define
exists?  How do you know that the existence created by your own experience 
is "reality"?
Indeed, it it "realistic" to assert that an indefinable "dynamic quality" 
exists at a "higher level" than a definable "static quality"?  You accept 
this on "faith".  I don't see that your stance on existential reality is any 
more valid or logical than my belief in ultimate reality.

> Are you trying to understand Pirsig¹s view of pragmatism,
> or do you simply reject it in favor of your own idealism?

I think I understand Pirsig's Quality hierarchy and his concept of 
experience as "the cutting edge of [existential] reality."  I do not try 
understand this theory as pragmatism, however. The fact that you call this a 
"pragmatic view" is based solely on the author's refusal to theorize beyond 
experiential existence and posit a truly metaphysical thesis.  That would of 
course have made the MoQ "idealistic", which you would find unacceptable.

> Imho you have made a decision to find Dq/Sq pragmatism
> subordinate to idealism.  You then accuse me of objectivism.
> I am sorry you put faith in idealism. You label my activities
> objectivism.  I understand that you feel that existence contains
> no meaning in itself and evolution is bogus.  This is odd on a
> MOQ website which supports evolution.

Again, you are begging the question of "pragmatism" versus "idealism" which 
is not the issue that divides us.  I don't "put faith in" either of these 
ideologies, nor have I made a decision to subordinate pragmatism. 
Pragmatism and ultilitarianism are simply the use of objectively proven 
methods to solve practical problems.  This is a logical approach to causal 
systems and relational processes.  Obviously, pragmatism has no application 
to Essence which is not a system or a process.

Your concepts are intractably framed in objective reality.  This limits your 
reasoning to empirical existence and denies you the broader perspective of a 
transcendent, uncreated source.

> Anyway the best to you, Ham.  Since the mind does not exist in
> Pirsig¹s thought I have no problem rejecting a meeting of the minds.

It is unfortunate for the MoQists that the mind (value-sensible self) does 
not exist for Pirsig, for it is the agent that brings Value into the world. 
It's even more regrettable that the celebrated author of a Quality-based 
philosophy did not realize this critical flaw in his epistemology.

Thanks again for your responses, Joe, and enjoy the holidays.

--Ham