[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[Ham Priday]

Hey Platt -- 

> I don't see where Quality is any more irrational than your
> uncreated Creator. Both are "outside rational analysis."
> But Quality has the advantage of being experience, or in
> SOM terms, being experienced every day.

Two things:  Unlike your esteemed author, I do not claim to be an 
anti-theist.   Also, what makes my Essence concept "rational" is the logic 
that only an uncreated absolute source (Cusa's "not-other") transcends 
experiential existence.

> To believe in an uncreated Creator is a matter of faith is it not?
> Unlike the Essence idea of an uncreated Creator, the MOQ
> idea that some things are better than others cannot be denied.
> My cat, UTOE, demonstrates the latter every day.

It's "a matter of faith" only in the sense that I can't empirically prove my 
conviction.
But then, neither can Mr. Pirsig prove that Quality is "the primary 
empirical reality".  The trope "some things are better than others" tells us 
nothing but that  experience comes in a range from the desirable to the 
undesirable.  It doesn't validate the theory that the universe is morally 
good (or bad) or that everything moves to "betterness".  Moreover, it 
doesn't explain what brings value into the world or what gives man (and 
sometimes less cognitive creatures) the capacity for discretionary judgment.

In addition to avoiding the illogic of a universe created from chaos or 
nothingness, a philosophy founded on Essence as the primary source can 
rationally account for the "how" and "why" of all these matters.  What 
non-faith-based answers are offered in the MoQ?

Another home run for Essentialism.  Keep 'em coming, Platt!

Best regards,
Ham