[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Ham Priday]

Good evening, Mark --

> I'm not sure of the wisdom, the attempt is one of reconciliation.
> As humans, that which we envision has its roots beneath our
> intellect, some kind of perennial thing maybe.  Perhaps the best
> truth is a synthesis, searching for that fundament.  I will work
> on your Value being my Quality, to see if I understand you better.

I would assume that Truth, even if we knew it, would be inexpressible. 
Absolute Truth is like absolute Value.  There is but one Absolute, and we 
can't express it as Value or Truth.  We can only realize its differentiated 
attributes.

> As I understand the essents you present, this may be akin
> to static quality.  That is the shapes with meaning that we
> envision.  For defined shapes to exist, there must be something
> separating them.  Perhaps this is Value.  We differentiate in a
> way that makes some essents better than others.  The way
> we differentiate creates categories which cannot be compared
> to each other (rocks and love for example).  Although overriding
> categories can result in such comparison sometimes.  It is this
> propensity for a relational context that can be formulated as
> Quality.  We have engrained in our interaction with the essents
> some fundamental attribute which in the end is no different
> from the observed essents.  Matter interacting with matter
> as it were.  One could perhaps say that this interaction is Quality.
> I choose that word, because it is what creates meaning
> for me.  Without Quality, things would be meaningless.

Would you have chosen that word had you not familiarized yourself with the 
MoQ?

There is nothing "static" about the quality (value) we experience as 
essents.  As I mentioned before, it is the dynamic nature of human 
sensibility that enables us to objectify Value.  'Essent-value' is 
experiential; that is, it's the incrementally perceived value of essents 
evolving and developing over time.  What is "ingrained" in us is 
value-sensibility (what Pirsig calls "pre-intellectual experience").  Except 
that each and every experience is perceived to have its own value relative 
to everything else.  Rather than "matter interacting with matter," it's 
Essential Value differentiated by experience to create finite relational 
'beingness' (essents).

[Ham, previously]:
> Understanding, recognition, comprehension, interpretation,
> evaluation, and analysis are . . . all 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 the
> Pirsigians refuse to acknowledge.

[Mark]:
> Yes, I suppose intellect could be one part.  I find it hard to
> separate it from the rest, so this is a semantic issue.  I am fine
> with your differentiation with various forms of sensibility.  We
> can certainly confine intellect to symbol manipulation for the
> purposes of communication.  However, the intellectual level
> can encompass all of these forms you present.  I also get
>caught up in what the individual self is, as you know, which
> may be an impediment to my understanding of your ontology.

The individual self is nothing but sensibility in want of Value. 
Proprietary selfness is a negation of Essence.  That's why the term 'negate' 
is appropriate.  Selfness is divided from Essence by nothingness, just as 
Sensibility is divided from Beingness by nothingness.  The nothingness that 
separates all existents is the common denominator of the differentiated 
world.  I don't know how to formulate this as an equation, except to say 
that Nothingness represents the primary negation whereby Sensibility is 
"excluded" from Essence to actualize existence.

[Skip to Mark]:
> If you are pointing to ultimate ineffability we get stuck in a
> paradox.  Our power of description grows as needed.
> At one point, the nature of the stars was ineffable.  We have
> now created words to describe such in more complex ways.
> Not that we have really gotten anywhere fundamentally by
> doing so, except to create a larger understanding.  It is this
> creation we are part of.  Breaking things into components,
> relating components, predicting behavior, etc.  It is all part
> of symbolism which is man's ability to shine like a sun.  At
> every point we become stuck with the next ineffable.

Yes, as much as we try, it is not possible for man to comprehend reality 
holistically.
But that's to man's benefit, because to do so would prevent him from 
realizing value from the relational perspective.  By the same token, if man 
had access to absolute Truth, he would be denied the capacity to exercise 
the free choice necessary to become a moral creature.  (This is the 
principle that Pirsig's "universal morality" misses.)

> I think I work the same way as you.  My intuition chooses
> what I want to read and add to my understanding.  I can't
> explain it any other way.  There is way too much to read,
> all of which could be meaningful.  So I head off on a "chosen"
> path and work from there.  I don't think I am quite where
> you are yet, I am still quite scattered, and ultimate meaning
> is still in progress.  Perhaps the progress itself is all I can
> ask for.  Might get bored otherwise.

Don't become discouraged, Mark.  I have noted much progress in your 
understanding of Essence qua Quality.  In fact, I've seen indications that 
you have begun to realize that Quality (Value) by itself cannot be the 
Absolute Source.  Is my optimism unfounded, or is Essentialism actually 
beginning to make some sense?

Anyway, thanks for hanging in there with me.

Cheers,
Ham