[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[Ham Priday]

On 12/14/09 6:22 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at sbcglobal.net> wrote;

> Hi Ham and all,
>
> I was trying to clear my thoughts.  DQ/SQ undefined/defined is
> not cynicism.  So, of course the unqualified assertion between us
> is DQ/SQ, the metaphysics of undefined-defined. My perceptions
> are undefined in that they are my perceptions. Then, when I wish
> to communicate with another I have to use defined concepts.
> Pirsig rightly saw that the whole truth is not expressed in defined
> concepts. Some real things are indefinable and known through
> analogy and metaphor like evolution.

I would argue that "the whole truth" is never known, and some of the 
so-called "truths" I've seen expressed in metaphor and analogy on this forum 
are not known either.  However, I'll let that pass, because it's now 
apparent to me that your criticism centers on the response I gave to your 
statement of 12/10:

[Joe, previously]:
> In order to know [Essence] you have to define 'existence' and then
> claim it is 'not essential to absolute Essence.'

[Ham]:
> I do not have to define existence because it is defined by experience.

What you say in this post reveals a misunderstanding about my ontology that 
needs to be addressed:

> How can an experience define existence when Absolute Essence
> is the ultimate reality that you believe in?  Your belief in the ultimate
> reality determines your definitions.  Does Absolute Essence, the
> ultimate reality, exist or is it beyond existence and only imaginary?
> You are in a logical trap, Ham, when you deny existence to an
> Absolute Essence, which is prior to existence.  Existence is the
> absolute reality and a definition of what exists is subject to an order
> in existence and a belief in Absolute Essence is beyond logic since
> it doesn¹t exist and is a matter of Faith.. You either accept
> existence or you don¹t. That is claiming a lot of power for words.
> Only in an acceptance of the undefined is such a statement possible,
> and its an acceptance of an evolution in consciousness only to
> higher emotional or higher intellectual levels in consciousness only
> which is available to all but not necessary or preordained.
> Pirsig saw clearly the undefined.

Joe, when I say existence is "defined by experience", I'm not talking about 
verbal definitions.  As the "cutting edge of reality" experience outlines, 
circumscribes. delineates, profiles, sculpts out Value as finite being --  
the objects and events of existence.  Value is essential; being is 
conditional.  Existence is phenomenal (experiential); Essence is primary 
(fundamental).

You are using "existence" to connote fundamental reality, whereas I am not. 
So, when you ask, "how can experience define existence when Essence is the 
ultimate reality?" you are assuming that Essence is an 'existent' which it 
is not.  You also assume that what does not exist must be "imaginary". 
Based on these false assumptions you accuse me of falling into "a logical 
trap", which is to posit an imaginary (i.e., "faith-based") source primary 
to empirical existence.

Bear in mind that my philosophy of Essentialism posits two realities: 
Differentiated Existence and Absolute Essence.  The former is the actualized 
"appearance" of reality; the latter is the potentiality and source of this 
actualization.  What I call Essence is no more an abstraction than Pirsig's 
DQ, since either may be considered "undefined" and both are "transcendent" 
realities.  I know no rule of logic that disqualifies an undefined source or 
ground of existence as invalid or imaginary. Do you?

> Imho  Existence is the ultimate reality which manifests as Essence in a
> logical universe.  In that way Calcium in the tooth of a sentient being
> exists differently from the Calcium in a calcium mine.  Evolution is 
> rightly
> an order in existence.   But, then He says, She says!  Mathematics is
> quite logical and it requires the existence of 1.

What is "manifested" is the appearance of beingness that we call existence. 
What is Real is the source of this appearance.  The source (or "cause") is 
logically primary to the effect.

Here is the "logic" as I see it:
Mathematics (the ordered system of numbers) requires the "primacy" of 1.
Existence (the ordered system of differentiation) requires the primacy of 
Essence.

Your Calcium analogy is based on the pluralistic "essences" of platonic 
idealism which does not relate to my Absolute Essence.  There are no 
"essences" in Nature other than realized (objectivized) Value.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, Joe.  But since the conclusions you 
were drawing were inconsistent with my ontology, I thought it advisable to 
further clarify my metaphysical position.  At least your complaints should 
now relate directly to my concepts rather than to assumptions you've drawn 
from statements out of context.

Thanks for helping me understand your thoughts more clearly.

Essentially yours,
Ham