[MD] Reductionism

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe --

> I read your post and I was impressed! I feel I understand
> a lot of what you say.  As far as ³explanatory value² goes
> I feel it is more logical to examine existence rather than essence.

You have always been my most likely convert to Essentialism.  But, you are 
also a "numbers man", and I confess I'm not comfortable constructing an 
ontology by the numbers.

> From a metaphysical examination of existence, evolution is exposed.
> Change 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, is a metaphysical concept most
> clearly explored in an examination of orders in existence, evolution,
> rather than by an examination of the individuality of essence which
> can admit no 0 point.
> If mathematics is essential there is only 1 and everything else is 
> addition.
> Existence in mathematical terms is 0,1.  Existence in knowing essential
> terms is 1 + 1 the knower and the known, which in an absolute must be
> denied.  I do not accept that I am at the level of an absolute, I only 
> think
> I am.
>
> For essential purposes mathematics is useless.   The primacy of
> mathematics in metaphysical thought today leads to an error in judgment
> which can only be resolved by an evolutionary study of existential 
> reality,
> e.g. Pirsig.

I think that's right.  But an evolutionary study of existential reality is 
not metaphysics.

> Aristotle proposed a mathematical structure for the perception of reality,
> S/O, 1/2/1.   He suggested an intentional existence for the mind and a
> real existence for the body 2.   For Aristotle mind 1 and body 1 exist
> differently but manifest in 1 person.  The manifestation of 2 as 1 is the
> error in the definition by Aristotle of the essence of man.  Change has to
> be according to mathematical logic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, evolution 
> not
> to essential logic 2 (body and mind) = 1 man.

The number 2 (duality) is the result of 1 and not-one (0).  Not by addition 
or subtraction but by negation.  Nothingness premeates all existence by 
dividing Self from Other and actualizing "difference".  But there can be no 
nothingness in Essence which Eckhart described as absolute 'IS-ness'. 
Nothingness is the negation of Essence which creates "otherness". 
Sensibility needs this otherness to realize Value.

> Evolution is outside mathematics with a metaphysics that states
> that 1 and 1 can be 1.  Evolution is not revealed in addition!
> The first thought of procreation was that a small homunculus was
> transferred from the man into the woman and grew until birth.
>
> Evolution acknowledges a change of existence. The same material
> can be found in differing evolutionary orders.
>
> Pirsig denies intentional existence.  He accepts a direct experience
> of evolutionary levels.  Instead of a mathematical logic in the perception
> of change, Pirsig proposes an evolutionary logic for Quality DQ/SQ.
> DQ is undefined and cannot become a term in a mathematical structure
> of reality, but it is not 0.

I see no reason why DQ cannot be defined.  If Cusanus can define God and 
Descartes and James can define the self, why can't Pirsig define DQ?  I 
think his excuse has more to do with a fear of being called a theist than 
with numbers and logic.

> Pirsig denies the intentional/real structure of existence required for a
> body/mind distinction.  Existence defines reality. Pirsig sees a hierarchy
> as an evolutionary order in existence.  Existence comes in different
> flavors, evolution.  The metaphysics of Aristotle¹s SOM is discredited.
>
> The logic of mathematics can only be metaphorical in a description of
> evolutionary reality.  It can accept an evolution in existence by
> acknowledging the metaphorical nature of mathematics between each level.

Why do you place so much emphasis on numbers when, as you admit, it limits 
one's understanding of metaphysics?  We live in a differentiated universe 
whose objects and attributes can be numbered.  But numbers have no more 
magic or power to express an absolute source than words.

> Bo has gone to great lengths to show that the logic of the MOQ
> has an inner consistency by enfolding the logic of DQ/SQ into
> evolution to an intellectual level SOL from the social level of 
> consciousness.

I would not venture to describe or defend Bo's metaphysics.  As you can see, 
I have enough trouble trying to articulate my own.

But thanks for your expression of confidence, Joe.

--Ham