[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo --


> For my part I am only interested in causation because it's included
> in the "herd" of SOM-induced "platypis" (paradoxes) that the
> MOQ allegedly resolves. And of those I find the mind/matter
> paradox most paradoxical and I wonder if Essentialism offers
> some solution?

If this is your comment -- there's some confusion because you typed my 
greeting line above it -- I find it odd that, having dropped our previous 
discussion, you would want to explore Essentialism for a solution to the 
mind/matter paradox.  Like the MoQ, which I'm told cannot be criticized by 
someone who doesn't accept Pirsig's concept of "holistic Quality", I find 
myself in much the same position.  That is, you can't use a philosophy to 
explain causation if you don't accept its fundamental thesis.

My "holistic source" is absolute, which means that entities or events are 
passing appearances of finitely limited (or reduced) sensibility.  As an 
essentialist, I believe that causation (i.e., cause-and-effect) is an 
intellectual precept derived from the temporal mode of experience.  That's 
why I don't use it in my ontology, but refer to creation or "actualization" 
(in the present tense) instead.  The actualized world of man's experience is 
infinitely differentiated.  This suggests that Difference is the nature of 
existence, and that to "actualize" something is to differentiate it from 
Absolute Essence -- in other words, to make it an "other" in space/time 
reality.

> You know what the paradox is? Mind is mind how far one pursues
> it and matter is matter, the twain never meet, yet matter (body) and
> mind interacts constantly. For instance I think about moving a
> finger and as long it's a thought nothing happens, but then I make
> up my mind and the thought materializes in a finger movement. It
> works the other way too, I take some chemical "stuff" (a drink) and
> my mind alters.

I don't know how much of that "chemical stuff" you've been drinking, but 
you're right that mind and matter, awareness and beingness, proprietary 
sensibility and its object are fundamentally different, albeit co-dependent 
in existence.  This, again, is the primary duality which Pirsig has made his 
nemesis.  Duality is the root of difference, and to reject or dismiss this 
principle renders ontology impotent.  All differentiation and contrariety is 
derived from the primary division (negation) of Sensibility from Essence. 
That of course includes the subject/object contingency you've alluded to.

You exist in the world as a "being-aware".  The contingencies of your 
existence are value-sensibility (proprietary awareness) and objectivized 
being (actualized value).  Neither contingency can exist without the other. 
As a finite entity, your being-aware is unique to you.  As such, you are a 
"provisional" existent, a negated "free agent" of the value which connects 
you to Essence.  (You'll note I've said nothing about "intellect" in this 
ontology.)

If you wish to pursue this line of discussion, I'll be happy to accommodate 
you.  But bear in mind that my entire philosophy is predicated on Absolute 
Essence.  Without this fundamental base, the derived tenets and axioms lose 
their cogency and fall apart.

Anyway, thanks for the query Bo.

Essentially yours,
Ham