[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Ron:

On 2/2 at 3:30 PM you asked:

> If you would, how do you define absolute truth?
> Essence is one and static, absolute in wholeness,
> all finite experience is illusionary.

The absolute state of ANYTHING -- Reality, Value, Power, Sensibility, Being, 
Truth -- is undifferentiated in Essence.  What is manifested and defined as 
a particular property or attribute of existence is always relative (to the 
observer and other entities).  For the essentialist, there are two 
"realities":  Essence (absolute potentiality) and Existence (actualized 
difference).  We infer that differentiated reality is "illusory" only 
because it is not the ultimate reality, but we also understand that it is 
the world of our existence.

[Ham, to Craig]:
> My argument (to Ron) is that Truth is an absolute
> which is not accessible to finite creatures.

[Ron]:
> Then you negate your own argument. How do you propose
> to make the distincton between Truth and fantasy?
> If you are proposing that the myth you have created
> is of value guiding the life experience, then admitting such
> and demonstrating uses and benefits would be most welcomed,
> but your claims equate absolute truth with any other myth.

We tend to get hung up on "labels" instead of the concepts they're meant to 
express or interpret.  Truth is such a label.  It can mean "legitimate", 
"factual",  "evident", "axiomatic", "universal", "wisdom", or even "moral 
goodness", depending on the context.  Myth is another label, often used 
pejoratively (as when you refer to my ontology as a myth).  One man's 
"truth" is another man's "fantasy".  Philosophical theories are hypotheses, 
and I make no claim to having discovered the tree of knowledge and truth, 
nor does Pirsig.  Although Essentialism is not a pragmatic philosoophy, I do 
demonstrate the value of free choice and the efficacy of rational 
self-directed value in human affairs.

> I do not think that this saves you from the charge of nihlism
> either, you still define what our culture understands as objective
> reality as an illusion, this is nihlism.

Subject/object duality is what culture understands as objective reality, 
too.  Has Pirsig not dismissed this reality as an illusion?  Essentialism 
makes a clear distinction between finitude (experiential reality) and 
Absolute Essence.  Unfortunately, Pirsig does not acknowledge a transcendent 
source, hence the continued confusion over whether Quality overrides 
Dynamic/Static or is itself dynamic.  Since I don't see any suggestion of 
nihilism in either philosophy, I'm mystified by your insistence that an 
ontology constructed on a "higher truth" than objective reality must be 
nihilistic.

> Does Essentialism propose an absolute morality?

The short answer is No.  It is a meaningless term for a relational human 
value.

> It proposes an absolute reality, but one we do not experience,
> Logic is contextual to experience so how would logic apply to
> derive something which experience does not recognize and know?
>
> What more can you give me other than you your say so in this matter?

I think philosophers "derive" their ontological concepts from intuitive 
reasoning or rare "moments of clarity" rather than logic, but use logic to 
support their premises.  (At least that's how my ontology evolved.) 
Experiential analogs that approximate metaphysical principles can also be 
suggested for analytical purposes.  And, as RMP has demonstrated, metaphor 
is useful where common reasoning and analogy are not applicable.

Kant believed that synthetic a priori judgments provide the basis for 
mathematical and geometrical relations.  I'm inclined to agree, although I 
think the pattern for for these relationships is intellectualized from 
experience.  The theory that synthetic knowledge is "preconditional" does 
not contradict my epistemology, as I maintain that the order and form of 
experiential reality is derived from essential value and actualized through 
experience, whether we are consciously aware of such "universal relations" 
or not.

I hope this brings you closer to an understanding of my philosophy and its 
emphasis on value in the actualized world of man's existence.  You will note 
that, except for your reference to Essentialism as a "myth", no insults are 
intended or implied.

Respectfully,
Ham