[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Maybe I am Horse, maybe not.  But I would like to answer
> your question (to Horse (me?) and suggest something that
> may appeal to you.
>
> Quality is Reality as we experience it.  This would put it into
> your differentiation category.  There is plenty of Reality which
> we do not experience, but if it were would be Quality.  This
> would put Reality into your Absolute category.

Wise counsel I am sure, thank you, Mark.  Maybe it's that the word 'Quality' 
doesn't fill the bill as the Absolute Source.  (I mentally substituted 
'Value' in that paragraph and it seemed more reasonable. . . except, of 
course, that Value isn't ultimate Reality, either.)

> The only difference with your ontology is that we create Quality
> (or Value) rather than experience it.  I am in the Experience Camp,
> at least today.  If I knew everything already then I wouldn't
> subscribe to this forum.

Not exactly.  We "differentiate" Value and create our reality 
experientially, as its 'essents'.  (This may be a communications snag in my 
exposition.)  It isn't that Value lacks reality or is non-essential.  Quite 
the contrary: Value, Sensibility, Order, Beauty, Intelligence, and Truth are 
all One in Essence.  But it takes a cognitive agent to distinguish these 
attributes and categorize them in a relational context.  That is "process", 
another attribute of the "differentiation category".

> Horse's statement (cut) sounds more like a paradox to refute an
> argument.  This was popular amongst the Sophists so he is certainly
> in character for MOQ.  However, by saying something is undefinable
> one is defining it as a category of thing.  We have the definable on
> one side, and the ineffable on the other.

Also, Horse was trying to position Intellect "outside the metaphysical 
system" for Marsha's edification, so my argument was an unwelcome intrusion. 
The "container"
paradigm is unworkable as a metaphysical concept -- especially as 
"intellect" is not a
universal attribute but only one aspect of the thought process. 
Understanding, recognition, comprehension, interpretation, evaluation, and 
analysis are some of the other intellectual functions.  The critical point, 
however, is that conscious awareness (sensibility) and the intellect by 
which it functions are proprietary to the individual self, an epistemology 
which Pirsigians refuse to acknowledge.

> For me, to say it is undefinable, means that we haven't tried hard
> enough yet.  We make up Quality, and then can't define it (yet).
> So here is where approximation comes into effect with the use of
> analogies.  No analogy will be perfect, several are better than one,
> and analogies can contradict other analogies.  There is no problem
> with contradiction, since we are working outside the standard methods
> of logic.  We have to.  Logic has a beginning, and expands from that.
> What happens if the beginning cannot be encompassed by Truth?
> Well that is where MOQ is.  Buddhism has plenty of analogies.

Except for "defining the ineffable", which is--and I believe MUST 
remain--beyond man's capacity, what you say is very true.  Unfortunately, 
I'm not gifted in the art of creating analogies, and it has proved to be a 
handicap in communicating abtuse concepts.  I'll have to work on that 
shortcoming.

> Everything in our creation has to start with an assumption.
> You have made one with Absolute Essence.  I think that is great.
> The point of a metaphysics is, what can it do for us?  If your
> Essence provides great meaning for you, you have accomplished
> your goal.  If others join you, even better since there is company
> in numbers.  To try to pin one ontology down as more correct
> is a personal experience.

For as long as I can remember, I've sought a plausible theory (ontology) of 
existence that would satisfy me.  I learned a bit from Theism, Platonism, 
Pantheism, Mysticism, Spiritualism, Existentialism, and Objectivism; but 
they all fell short of fulfilling my need.  So I resorted to my own devices: 
intuition and logic, plus some gems of wisdom from gnostics like Eckhart and 
Cusanus.  I hit upon Value first, at about the time I became acquainted with 
Pirsig's Quality.  The ontogeny of differentiation came later. Currently 
I've been refining what might be called the "dynamics of Value", but the 
overall cosmology is irrevocable insofar as my own beliefs are concerned.

Truth is relative to the individual; so you're right that the "correct 
ontology" is the one pinned down from personal experience.  Whether 
Essentialism can satisfy others will depend on several factors that have 
become clear from my participation in this forum.  The greatest impediment I 
face is the anti-spiritual bias of a society that is in rebellion against 
religion and confuses Essence with theism.  Although the MoQ is also a 
valuistic philosophy, the Quality posited by its author is both "agent" and 
"creator",  affording man about as much freedom as the mushrooms attached to 
our maple tree.  If the existence of one's "self" is in doubt and intellect 
is an unrealized variant of universal Quality, how can we possibly nurture 
the core values that give meaning and purpose to our life experience? 
Indeed, why SHOULD we?

On the positive side, and perhaps partly due to the contributions of 
free-thinkers such as yourself, I see more tolerance toward ideas that 
complement and shape, rather than attack, Pirsig's valuistic insights. 
Instead of a predisposition against the spiritual and aesthetic aspects of 
Quality (Value), Tim, John, Platt, Craig and others are increasingly 
accepting the idea that value realization is psycho-emotional as well as 
intellectual.  This trend is as helpful to me as it is to RMP.

But as you said to Arlo on Monday. . .
> We are all trying to find some kind of Truth, when all we do
> is create it.  How can there be endless regression in a creation?
> It grows outward, not inward.  I am a fan of Goedel.

Thanks, Mark.
Ham