[MD] Essentials for target practice

[Ham Priday]

My 'I' corresponding with your 'I', John --


> Agree, of course.  I is the primordial concept; we must take it as a 
> given.
> THE concept which  leads to further conceptualization and perception.
>
> And since we're stuck with it, it must be real.  But only conceptually.

But if the perceived world is "real" only conceptually, then what is 
Reality?

Incidentally, I'll be chatting with my old professor friend in a couple of 
hours.  I've sent him the tenets of Essentialism, with which I launched this 
thread, and have asked for his opinion on each.  Since Bill is an academic 
biophysicist, I anticipate skepticism on all 12 premises, possibly allowing 
for some acceptance of the 'ex nihilo', 'free agent', and 'wisdom = value of 
experience' points.  I also hope to engage him in a discussion of 
"relations" which are fundamental to my valuistic ontology, although I 
haven't made this clear to date.  (I'll let you know how it goes.)

> Ok I see where you're coming from then, I think.
>
> Therefore I am.
>
> The conceptual I percieves otherness, therefore it is.
>
> Is what?
>
> Oh.  I was operating on the understanding of existence=reality.

While this may be sarcasm on your part, it's really the crucial issue for 
both of us.  Being exists as a phenomenon perceptually distinguishable from 
nothingness.  The subjective 'I' exists as value-sensibility.  But neither 
of these existents is Reality itself.  In fact, Reality is what DOES NOT 
exist, which leads to nihilism unless one is open to the metaphysics of 
Essence [MoE?].  No one in this forum subscribes to it, nor am I aware of 
any Pirsigian who even acknowledges the need for a primary source.

> Let's review, your core self is a concept which perceives,
> which makes it sound like conceptualization is primary - Idealism.
> However, conceptualization arises from perceiving differences, i.e.,
> value awareness, which makes perception primary, i.e. empiricism.
>
> Back and forth the philosopher argues.  I can see how it would drive
> anybody crazy.  Is there no solution?
>
> What is perceived, is values.  What is conceived, is values.
> We can put the whole arguement to rest by making values our
> ontological primacy and rest easy.  It makes sense, is easy to explain
> and comes with a text book that's fun to read.  Tah-dah, the MoQ.
>
> As the voice from the sky said to Paul on the road, "why kick
> against the pricks?"

To correct your review, what is perceived is being and nothingness.  What is 
conceived is existence.
You're right that "conceptualization arises from perceiving differences." 
But this is not value-awareness; it's existential awareness.  Value is not a 
"precept", not perceived, but is sensed pre-intellectually (e.g., Pisig's 
"pre-intellectual  experience").  Lila may be "fun to read", but it is not a 
textbook on metaphysics.  Without a theory (ontology) that defines Reality, 
we do not have a metaphysics.

[Ham]:
> Conceptual equivocation covers a multitude of sins, which is why I find
> it an inadequate foundation for ontology.  Such reasoning is like saying
> "All roads lead to Rome", so it doesn't matter what or whose concept
> gets us there.  But concepts aren't just analogies or metaphors to please
> the soul; they are the principles of an Ultimate Truth which, while 
> unprovable,
> is also invariable.  The philosopher cannot be satisfied with either/or
>> postulates or conclusions drawn from polls sampled under various 
>> conditions.

[John]:
> ALL roads lead to anywhere, if you're willing to keep going and making the
> "right" turns.
>
> The key is making the correct choices at every decision fork.  Making
> correct choices is what the MoQ is all about.  Reassuring us that there is 
> a
> "Rome" to get to, is what Idealism is all about.  And allowing for 
> varieties
> of religious experience, is what keeps us free to explore.
>
> However I'd argue with those who say it doesn't matter how you get there.
> There's long ways, dangerous ways, etc.
>
> I'd also argue with those who say that they have found The Way.
> For the way is relative to where you are when you start, and we all start
> from differing places.

Vive la différence!  However, The Way is a path for the existent in a 
pluralistic world, not a roadmap to metaphysical reality.  If the MoQ helps 
you live out this existence with equanimity, by all means follow it.
Speaking for myself, I need more than metaphor in pretty prose for 
philosophical conviction.

> I believe Ellul answers your problem well with his analysis of your
> "Ultimate Truth".  He agrees that this ultimate truth is eternal, 
> unchanging
> and hard as a diamond.  But the only way we have of getting to it is
> through the infinitely malleable word - the world of conception.  This 
> word
> is dependent upon language, paradox, and reconciled conflict.

I haven'r read Ellul, but anyone who believes that 'ultimate truth' is 
revealed in a literal interpretation of The Word has succumbed to 
theological dogmatism.  Not my cup of tea.  Man's quest for spirituality 
extends beyond the notion of an anthromorphic god who rules the world.  The 
tragedy is that western culture is still in revolt against spirituality and 
in a state of denial against anything that smacks of religiosity.  In a 
word, we are hoisted by our own petard of rationality.

You said:
> Concepts exist!  Even if "only" in our head,  The real reality out there
> is influenced by our preconceptualized ways of knowing.

I responded::
> Our "ways of knowing" are preconceptualized by value-sensibility.
> It is experience that differentiates value to make existence (being and
> nothingness) our reality.

Now you say:
> You lost me at "preconceptualized".  And then I'm also confused by
> experience differentiating value when value is differentiation.
>
> In other words, when I try and disentangle your ontology, I fear
> my own sanity.

Fear not, dear John.  (I should have said "influenced by" rather than 
"preconeptualized by" in my response above.)  "Sensed" value is not 
differentiated; it is the intellect that differentiates "experienced" 
values.  I was trying to establish that "our ways of knowing" (i.e., the 
forms of experience) are intellectually derived from the valuistic order of 
the primary source.

> But anyway, I find nothing here to refute "existence (that which exists) =
> reality".

Again, that which exists represents existential reality.  Ultimate Reality 
is not an existent.  Until you acknowledge these two states of reality, you 
will not understand my ontology.

I also said that when it comes to Truth, ideas don't count.

> I disagree completely.  Ideas and improvisations do nothing BUT move us
> relative to truth.  Closer when they succeed, further when they fail.

"Relative to truth"?  What does than mean?  Existence IS relative. 
Everything moves us "relatively".
Are you deliberately equivocating, John, or just playing 'hard to get'?

Yours for real,
Ham