[MD] Subjectivity in the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --



> I've been thinking about what you said, Ham.
> First, about "continuum."  Pirsig says he means by
> continuum simply "that it goes on and on forever."

Glad you're thinking, but just so you understand, Essence does not "go", it 
just IS.  It's not "dynamic" in the DQ sense.  A continuum, as I understand 
it, is an absolute extension without distinction.  Webster's says its 
"distinction of content can be affirmed only by reference to something 
else", such as numbers, for example.  In fact, "continuum" is really the 
wrong term for a dynamic process or a system in transition, such as 
biological evolution.  This is one of several quarrels I have with Pirsig's 
terminology.  Most of the time, when it concerns "patterns", he's describing 
Quality dynamically while calling it "static".  As a consequence, I have no 
real conception of how he views DQ.  Is it the "whole" of reality, the 
essence of Nature, or the transcendent source of both?

> But, that's not why I'm writing.
>
> The question I have for you is: "Is Essence immanent
> in the world as well as transcendent?" If it is, doesn't
> that mean it is immanent in you and I and everybody else?
>
> I suspect the answer to both is, "Yes."

That's a great question, Platt.  I like what "immanent" implies, and 
inasmuch as Essence is the only true Reality, it is most certainly the 
source (i.e., potentiality) of everything everywhere.  The caveat here, 
though, is that "every-" presupposes "more than one", and Essence is 
absolute in its oneness.  In other words, there is no division or difference 
in Essence.  Now, I'm aware that a differentiated world is inconsistent with 
a unified source, and that the metaphysics of creation defies common logic. 
Indeed, this is the paradox that has occupied most of my time to resolve.

Transcendence means only "extending beyond the limits of ordinary 
experience."  It's a handy word for ministers and poets to allude to "a 
Creator", but it's not definitive enough for philosophers.  For, if 
"difference' is antithetical to the primary source (Essence), it cannot be 
essential.  Which means that Essence is not "immanent" in differentiated 
beingness.

> If so, and if as you say in your book on page 79 that
> Essence is "not something different from its absolute
> Self or its absolute Value," then perhaps -- just perhaps
> -- the difference between your philosophy and Pirsig's
> is not so wide after all. For just as Pirsig says "Quality
> has Lila" we possibly can say, "Essence has Lila."
>
> Or am I just whistling Dixie?

I find it of more than passing interest that Pirsig did not say "Quality IS 
Lila", which would have made Quality imminant to Lila.  (But, maybe he was 
simply waxing poetic.)  On the other hand, I CAN say "Value is immanent to 
Lila", because I have an out that Mr. Pirsig did not avail himself of --  
Absolute Essence.  Value is a relative aspect of Essence realizable only by 
the differentiated agent.  A précis of my hypothesis for the actualization 
of difference appears earlier in the book under "The Value of Nothingness", 
Chptr. 4, pps. 67-71.

Briefly, Difference arises as a "negation" of Essence, dividing Sensibility 
(the "negate") from an apparent Otherness (the "essent").  The essent 
represents Value to the negate which is realized differentially when the 
negate becomes an individuated "being-aware".  This realization occurs 
through experience which "objectivizes" Value as the phenomenal reality we 
call existence.  Neither the negate (self) nor its experienced objects are 
"essential realities".  Only the Value is real, and we perceive it only 
relationally.

As to your question, "is Essence immanent in you and me?", I would have to 
equivocate and say it is immanent as differentiated Value.  While that may 
disappoint you, keep in mind that Value is also our vital link to Essence. 
If I have you thoroughly confused, let me offer a simple analogy.

Did you ever drop a silver Christmas ball from the tree and watch it break 
into many slivers on the floor?  Each of those shell-like fragments will 
mirror the lighted tree standing above it.  You and I are broken fragments 
from the tree of Essence mirroring the value of our source.  What we reflect 
of Essence differentially, relationally and conditionally, is what we ARE 
(absolutely) in Essence.

Hmmn ... that's not a bad analogy, and I just made it up!  (Maybe I should 
have followed RMP's example and explained my thesis in metaphors ;-). 
Anyway, I hope it clears away some of the confusion and restores your 
confidence in Value not only as a synonym for Quality but as the 
transcendent aspect of Absolute Reality.

I'm indebted to you, Platt. You've provided an opportunity for me to address 
a metaphysical issue of profound significance.  I'll defer to your judgment 
as to whether I've diminished the gap between Essentialism and the MoQ.

Essentially yours,
Ham