[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> On Feb 11, 2010, at 2:38:06 PM, "Ham Priday" wrote:
>> The problem with Pirsig's philosophy is that reality is assumed
>> to be a divided system from the beginning. There is no creator,
>> no design, no purpose. There is only Quality. Apart from the
>> fact that Quality (Value) is a human measurement, nothing
>> comes from nothingness, let alone a divided system.
>> There must be a primary cause or source for anything to be.
>> This is not a concept of mythology or religion, it's the
>> logic of reason.

> Why do you say it is a divided system? How does this work 4u?

I used the word "divided" in this reply to Bodvar because on Feb 8 he said 
"I don't see much meaning in ultimate anything which is then divided." 
Generally I use "differentiated" as a descriptive term for pluralistic 
(experiential) reality, reserving "division" for the primary 
Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy.  In an empirical sense, every existent 
(being) is differentiated from every other. What the value-sensible subject 
perceives is a "reality of otherness", whereas Absolute Reality is 
"not-other".  I don't expect Bo to accept this concept, but it does account 
for an "ultimate [source] which is then divided".

> Quality is Essence, our negation of Quality provides us with a
> means to identify individual and separate degrees of Quality.
> It is because we negate Quality that we are able to experience
> it. A drawing is experienced through its negation of a white piece
> of paper. However, the drawing cannot exist without that piece
> of paper.

I like your ontogeny, although I think the "negation" function is 
misinterpreted.  That is, we don't negate Quality (Value), we negate the 
object that our value-sensibility represents.  Experience  separates or 
extracts the object from otherness, and we intellectualize it as a 
particular being (for ourself).  You might want to review Martin Heidegger's 
cosmology of "Being-in-the-world" ('dasein', in German) which spells this 
out in great detail.  Heidegger called this secondary negation "nihilation", 
theorizing that "The nothing itself nihilates. ... it discloses these beings 
in their full and heretofore concealed strangeness as what is radically 
other - with respect to the other."

> In terms of a primary cause or source for everything,
> I am not sure if that is necessary. You are asking what makes
> it up? Why can it not just be?

What you are really asking is: "Why philosophize?"  'Ex nihilo nihil fit', 
the metaphysical maxim attributed to Empedocles, predates the MoQ by 2500 
years.  Whether we acknowledge it or not, nothing can "just be".  A primary 
source is essential.  I quote from your post of 2/7: "There is a reality 
outside of experience, there has to be else wise we are just negating 
nothingness in a vacuum."  Essence is what I call the ultimate reality that 
transcends experience.

Thanks for your insights and understanding, Mark.

Essentially yours,
Ham