[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Greetings Ham,

Here I go again, dog-paddling in the deep end.


> But if the perceived world is "real" only conceptually, then what is
> Reality?
>
>
An old friend of mine, Grego, used to say humorously, "reality, what a
concept".  And obviously, reality is a concept, but if you point out  there
is an objective reality outside of our conceptualization, I can't argue with
you, but I can't really see much usefulness in saying anything about it.
 For we are stuck with our concepts, always.




> 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.)
>
>

Discussing philosophy with old friends is one of life's pure pleasures.



>
> 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.


I still have problems with nothingness.  I'd posit that we conceptualize
nothingness from a pre-realized sense of being.  Nothingness is just too
"not there" for any kind of perceptual distinguishing.

How about absence?  I could go with absence.  For any thing to be realized,
it's a negate of its absence.  For some reason that makes more sense to me.
 I think because deep down, I'm not sure that there is any true nothingness
anywhere.  Even the vacuum of space is a "something" that flows with
energies and forces beyond our normal perceptions.  The connotation of
"nothingness" trips me up.



> 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.
>
>
Reality does not exist?  We're back to my original refutation, that even if
reality is only a concept, it exists AS a concept and thus "exists".  We use
it pragmatically in staying at the top of cliffs and out of heavy traffic.
 Comes in handy, that way.

And I guess I don't really see a need for a primary source, either.  Or
perhaps more accurately, any need of talking about it, any more than I need
to talk about what is real beyond my conceptualization.

All I  need of a primary source is explicated in the unfolding of its
effects  as it instantiates in the moment.



> To correct your review, what is perceived is being and nothingness.  What
> is conceived is existence.
>

Ok, I squinch up my eyes, and substitue "being and absence" and agree.
 Conception as existence, I also agree.  So far so good.



> 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.
>

I agree Lila is not a metaphysics.  Just like pragmatism is not a
philosophy.  Pragmatism is a method of philosophizing and Lila is a how-to
manual on building a metaphysics of undefinable Quality.

And you're absolutely correct about value not being a precept, or percept or
whatever you call that which our senses tell us.  "Pre-intellectual" has
been as hard for me to grasp as nothingness.  I'd say that we construct an
idea of value from our experience, just as we do with reality.  Thus it's
seems obvious to equate value with reality with experience.

What if we turn back to Father Kant, and designate Quality as the ultimate a
priori conceptualization upon which all else derives?

... has this been tried?



>
> 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.


Picky, picky.  If the prose is really, really pretty, and the metaphor
exceedingly apt, I can't imagine any more Qualifying criteria.   But deep
down, I've always sided with the sophists.

Reality is Marketing.




>
> I haven't read Ellul, but anyone who believes that 'ultimate truth' is
> revealed in a literal interpretation of The Word has succumbed to
> theological dogmatism.


Ellul, as most theologians, is more expert at avoiding theological dogmatism
than you or I could ever be, Ham.  His point, which jives strongly with
Royce's community of infinite interpretation, goes like this:

"The blessed uncertainty of language is the source of all its richness. ...
Discourse is ambiguous; it is never clear, it arrives from one person's
unconscious aggregate of experiences, desires, skills, and knowledge, only
to fall into another person's, thus producing a different meaning.  Because
of these continual misunderstandings, new life is breathed into the
relationship.  We must constantly begin all over again, as a result the
relationship becomes a rich, complex landscape, with unexpected mountain
passes and inaccessible peaks."

He goes on to claim that it must be so, in order to avoid that kind of
rigid, dogmatic encapsulation that you so wisely avoid.  He eschews all
efforts to standardize language into mere algebraic formula or the kind of
communication of information that bees perform.



>  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.
>
>
Well said.  Not as well as Wordsworth, but not bad.

“Great God! I'd rather be A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; So might I,
standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less
forlorn; Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea; Or hear old Triton blow
his wreathed horn”

But the problem remains, how to get that particular genie back out of the
bottle, now that he's been consigned there since the end of 19th century.



John prev:

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


> 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 think I can buy that first part, even tho I don't as a rule, ponder
"Ultimate Reality" anymore than you ponder the anthropomorphic
daddy-in-the-sky.  But I'm willing to allow you to do so and thus see  where
you're coming from and I can go along with it.

But I don't agree that ideas don't count when it comes to Truth.  What is
Truth but a high Quality idea that drives all intellectual
conceptualization?


>  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'?
>
>

More likely I'm equivocating on accident.  Shootin' from the hip and missing
on more than one instance.  Much like Pirsig in the Copleston Annotations!

What exactly is it that makes existence relative?  I'd call existence my own
personal absolute, and all percepts and concepts relative to this
experience.

As far as "hard to get", Ham, all I can say is "take's one to know one!"

But that's ok.  According to Ellul, all these misunderstandings and
fumblings are exactly what creates meaning.  It's a process.

Thanks for indulging mine.

John