[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[MarshaV]

Greetings Gentlemen,

Sorry to interrupt, but...

At 01:43 AM 1/26/2009, you wrote:

>Hi Bo --
>
>>Darwin's evolution theory is science and I  "..leave unto science
>>what science's is".  It's when it comes to how life emerged in the
>>first place that MOQ's adds something useful. The dynamic
>>"dislike" of inorganic stability resulted in biological stability, which in
>>turn resulted in social stability, and - finally - intellectual stability.
>
>I find it curious that you (i.e., Pirsig) exhort "instability", 
>while the rest of mankind is desperately looking for a way to make 
>the world more stable -- scientifically, socially, economically, 
>internationally, militarily.  Isn't this going against the central 
>premise that "the dynamic 'dislike' of biological stability" is what 
>inexorably moves the world to "betterness"?  If so, how do you 
>market the philosophy of dynamic instability to world torn by 
>instability?  Should you even try?

The rest of the world?  You do not know what the rest of the world is 
desperate for.  Those with power would like to scientifically, 
economically, internationally, militarily stabilize events to enhance 
their power.  Most of the humans in the world would like food to feed 
their families and a decent job or livelihood to provide the means to do so.

Equating 'dynamic' and 'instability' get you nothing but accused of 
using linguistic tricks.


>[Ham, previously]:
>>Difference is negated from Essence with no loss of absolute integrity.
>>The "aspects" of differentiation and the emergence of otherness in
>>space/time are precisely what Essence is NOT.
>
>[Bo]:
>>This is a variety of the fallacious pure Quality of which MOQ is a
>>corruption, this is wrong: Quality IS the MOQ. I suggest that space,
>>time and everything that constitutes our existence are "static"
>>aspects of a "dynamic" Essence, but that would make
>>Essentialism a copy of the MOQ and I guess that's anathema-
>
>Indeed, "pure Quality", like "pure Value", is fallacious, since they 
>are both relational.  But you have it backwards, Bo.  Only an MoQist 
>would call a developing series of events in time "static".  If the 
>world were static, there could be no whirling electrons or energy 
>exchanges to create molecules, orbiting planets, bio-genetic 
>processes, or living species.  If you need an example of a dynamic 
>process, study the evolution of life forms on this planet -- 
>including the civilization of man.  The physical universe and 
>everything in it has been in constant flux since the big 
>bang.  Nothing in existence is stable or static, from a rock in the 
>desert to the history of mankind.  Only Essence is static.

Static (also relational) patterns are overlaid onto a developing 
series of events, time being one of the patterns.  Essence is a 
static pattern like the concept of Quality.  Both are conceptual 
constructs for something beyond language and overlaid onto developing 
mental events.  Sorry Ham, but Essence is not off the hook because 
you say so.



>>But would there be any Essence without "man"? Course not and in
>>that case Essence is a fallout of Man and and Metaphysics of Man
>>(MOM) is called for. ...
>
>Your rhetorical question reveals what may well be the crux of our 
>dispute. Man is only a transient observer with no essential 
>reality.  What he senses is the value of Essence.  Everything else 
>is a finite construct of his organic sensibilities.  Inasmuch as man 
>is estranged from Essence, his existence as a being-aware is but a 
>passing phase of ultimate reality.  So your answer is wrong.  Man's 
>existence is derived from Essence and is conditionally dependent on 
>it.  Only Essence is uncreated, independent, and immutable.

Please offer an example of a finite construct.  Seems to me they 
change, they at least have a coming and going.  Show me this 
uncreated, independent immutable Essence.  Or does it only exist in 
your mind?  And you cannot use the authority of Philosophy to say it 
is so, unless Philosophy is like Monopoly.  And that's okay.  Games 
are fun.



>Now let me return the question: Would there be any Quality without 
>man? (Give this some thought before you answer.)  Remember that 
>Pirsig refused to define Quality, insisting that "we all know what 
>it is."  What if there was no one to sense it, experience it, "know" 
>it?  Where or what would Quality or Value be in the absence of a 
>sensible observer?
>
>>I am fully aware of Man's central role, so central that it can't be
>>part of argument or - as said a billion times - a MOM is needed,
>>and IMO as a copy of the MOQ ... fine with me,
>>it's the Dynamic/Static and static levels that counts.
>
>As said before, without change no pattern could form.  Even 
>discerning a pattern is a process in time.  Existence is a dynamic 
>relational system derived from an uncreated source which has no 
>relations nor a need to change.

Understanding that time is also a pattern, and change 'uncreated 
source' to DQ and I think were set to go.



>>SOM's "final world" Immanuel Kant postulated that time, space,
>>causation is "the world for us" while the "inherent properties of the
>>the universe" (world in itself) is out of reach. This you seemingly
>>subscribe to, something that makes you an inhabitant of MOQ's
>>intellectual level, i.e. not the ultimate vantage point.
>
>Kant was right that time, space and causation represent man's world. 
>However, I would argue that the world is not out of reach, since we 
>"reach out to it" every day through experience and all our knowledge 
>comes from it. What Kant, and the existentialists who followed him, 
>failed to understand is that there is no "in" or "out", and that 
>what they called the "world-in-itself" is actually the experiential 
>world that each self actualizes.

Then Kant was not right.  One from column A and two from column 
B.  Is that one of rules for playing Essence?



>>I have no illusions about the two of us converting each other, but
>>it's interesting and compared to some moqists you are a true
>>philosopher.

Playing to the Code of Art, whether painting or writing a philosophy, 
is great.  I love you both.


.
.
Science does not know its debt to imagination.  ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.