[MD] Essentials for target practice

[John Carl]

Ok, Ham, I'm really getting somewhere,

 I think.

Ham:


>
> It's true that Reality is a concept.  But so is Existence, as you and
> others have pointed out.  Pirsig even turned it into a metaphysics!  In fact
> we hold empirical knowledge as so many concepts.  Physical principles,
> evolution, relativity, mathematics, geometry and calculus -- they're all
> concepts.  Marsha would argue that everything we know or experience is a
> "pattern".  Does that make it any less "real" for us than, say, a phenomenon
> or an object?
>
> There comes a time, it seems to me, when a "concept" must stand for
> something beyond a mental image or dialectic symbol.  We inhabit and
> participate in a world that we all treat as "real", at least when we're not
> philosophizing.  Is it conceivable that this universe of concrete subjects
> and objects can exist on its own without an intrinsic essence to create and
> sustain it?



John:

Absolutely!

heh-heh.. get it?  "absolutely"?

Actually, in reality,  I'm not so sure.  We can't go outside of or world to
see, nor back in time to observe what creates and sustains.  I prefer to
keep the question open, and myself asking it, than to definitely say one way
or the other.

I do think a transcendant harmonizing principle is observed in the relation
between subject and object, and it is this principle which is the inviting
topic of discussion.

Ham:


>  It doesn't matter that this essence is inaccessible to the senses and must
> be conceptualized as a metaphysical premise.  What matters is that it is
> real, and that we realize it as the true Reality.  Pirsig postulated that
> Quality (DQ) is the true reality.  I agree that Quality (better identified
> as Value) is the essential ground of existential reality. However, I
> maintain that "unrealized value" is an epistemological absurdity, which is
> to say, realization is contingent upon man's sensibility.
>
>
John:
Well, if you're gonna conceptualize metaphysical premises, I can't argue
with that.  A perfectly valid enterprise.

And I now realize what you mean by unrealized value as an absurdity.  Much
in the same way, Quality is dependent upon Choice - or Free Will.  Without
the freedom to choose, "betterness" is meaningless.

I find no disagreement there..

Ham:


> I promised to report on Professor Bill's reactions to my "essentials".   As
> our Saturday chats tend to be long-winded, we managed to discuss only four
> of the dozen tenets in the 90 minutes allotted.  Like you, Bill doesn't see
> the need for "nothingness", suggesting that the first tenet read: "Nothing
> comes from nothing."  I can live with that revision, except that it may be
> misconstrued by some as a "positive" statement, i.e., "Nothing creates
> itself", which of course is not my meaning, but which I made the second
> tenet (also as a "negative" assertion.).
>
> As if to refute this tenet, Bill then proceeded to discuss a theory of
> abiogenesis by which life forms are believed to have been produced by
> inanimate matter.



John:  Interesting, but I'm more inclined to yours and my formulation above,
that value requires choice - the discriminate subject - in order for the
world to be as we find it.  Which also jives with a mutual admiration we
share for Dr. Lanza's idea that the cosmos is a construct of animal
consciousness, no?


Ham:



>  He also criticized me for using "philosophical words" that support my
> thesis, such as "appearance", "otherness", and--yes--even "value".  He has
> always insisted that "importance" or "virtuosity" are more apt terms than
> value, especially as they pertain to utlilitarian ends. (Bill, an avid
> reader, repeatedly reminds me that he's spent a lifetime studying man's
> behavior through all of history, and that he considers his personal
> philosophy to be the acquisition of "virtuous knowledge".


John:

Sounds a bit like my old friend Steve, who moderates a discussion on
Stoicism and holds a great deal of stock in such things as "virtuous
knowledge".

Ham:


> On those rare occasions when he has indulged me in a discussion of a
> philosophical concept, his typical response has been: "But what can you DO
> with it?")
>
>
John:

Well... it's always a good question, Ham.

Ham:

The professor refused to accept my premise that man is a "free agent" (No.
> 10) on the ground that there is no historical precedent for this assertion.
> "The idea that man is free is greatly exaggerated," he said, dismissing my
> claim that man has the innate capacity to act in accordance with his values.


John:

Ah, well you know where I stand on that one.

Ham:


> Although he agreed that truth is relative (No. 11), he failed to understand
> why access to absolute truth would be inimical to individual freedom.  About
> the only tenet he accepted without qualification was No. 12, again stressing
> that "realizing the value of experience" was his life goal.



John:

I believe we agree in essence, but I word this differently than you.
 Absolute Truth exists only as a conceptual ideal, which is necessary for
communication.  We can never hold the absolute in our hands, or our back
pockets, but the process of continual seeking and interpretation reveals the
reality of that which all would  freely aknowledge at least, as "useful".

Ham:

 Altogether it was a rather disappointing discussion.
>
>
John:

Well, perhaps like this one, it will prompt more thoughts and ideas which
lead to some constructive understanding.  That's what I like about what
Royce terms "infinite interpretation"



 John prev:


   The connotation of
>> "nothingness" trips me up.
>>
>
>
Ham replies:


> I don't think you are atypical, John, and I find your "anything realized is
> a negation of its absence" concept intriguing.  Let me say that I define
> "nothingness" in the Sartrean sense of "non-being".  Even though nothingness
> is not an 'existent', being cannot exist without non-being,



John:

 I'm sorry, but I disagree, I think.  Vaccuum and absence are parts of the
whole which is being-in-totality, and if you posit some sort of ultimate
nothingness surrounding or contextualising ultimate being, as ontologically
necessary... well, I don't think I can go there with you.

It's like asking, How big is the universe?  Or how old is time?  We
experience being and differentiation, but we can't experience nothing.  So I
think you're just guessing or supplying a thing of ontologically necessity
that isn't actually necessary.  Or rather, Sartre did.

Ham:


This is another of existence's dualities.  I doubt that anyone who has read
> "Being and Nothingness" can dismiss this proposition.  That we straddle a
> being/nothing universe in our life-experience explains why existence is
> negational -- a "reduction" of (as opposed to an "addition" to) Essence.  It
> also explains why the Ultimate Reality that transcends existence cannot
> logically be said to "exist".
>
>

John:  Maybe its just my good fortune to not be confused by the right books,
but  I'd aver that that Ultimate Reality that transcends existence, is just
as ontologically unnecessary as nothingness.

What I've been really fascinated with today, is John Durham Peters
exposition on Royce's Supplementary to his World and Individual, which was
an argument against certain aspects of Bradley's brand of Absolute Idealism.
 I'd like to offer you the whole thing and get your take on it, because I
enjoyed reading it and thought of you often while doing so.  Let me know if
you're interested.  I'd send you the link, but I can't seem to find it.

I won't post it here, as it runs to 15 pages, but here's an exemplary
snippet:


"Royce’s map-within-the-map on the soil of England is an illus-

tration of Cantor’s discovery that infinity need not sprawl off into

vertiginous seriation, but can take on manageable order, specificity

and determinateness. His map is a vivid metaphor of the one-to-

one mapping that is central to Cantor’s set theory. Royce wants

to guarantee the possibility of concourse between temporal ex-

perience and eternal order. His absolute is a kind of species-wide

communication of Spirit that stretches across time and space. Even

in Royce’s breakthrough work, The Religious Aspect of Philosophy

(1885), there is an implicit semiotic dimension to the absolute as

that principle which makes shared meaning possible among dis-

tinct consciousnesses; in his terms, the possibility of error presup-

poses a larger framework of meaningfulness. (Royce’s charac-

teristic gesture is affirmation ex negativo.) As the vanquisher of

solipsism, the absolute is a principle of communication."


"Absolute as a principle of communication", is why I find such strong
concordance between Royce's Absolute, and Pirsig's Quality, and why I'm
fascinated how these two different men came to many of the same solutions
from differing aspects of intellect.


John prev:


>  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.
>>
>
>
Ham:


> I know this conclusion sounds nonsensical.  Here's the way I explained it
> in my online thesis:
> "If Essence is a priori, and existence is limited to phenomena that occur
> in time and space, then it is illogical to say that Essence exists.  Essence
> is the infinite Source of finite experience, not an existent.  (Aristotle
> rejected the "Infinite" as an existing reality on the premise that a whole
> number cannot be infinite because one can never actually count to
> infinity.)"
>
>
John:

Yes, and Royce mentions Aristotle also, when he takes on Bradley in the
supplemental essay.  Handily deals with them both, imo.  He uses the new
mathematics of transfinite numbers and reminds us that infinity is a *
mathematical* concept.

Here, I'm gonna end up quoting the whole thing at ya before we're done here:

"Royce’s key move is to rethink the absolute mathematically.

Bradley gets stuck in an infinite regress, claims Royce, because

he does not understand the infinite, which is, after all, a math-

ematical concept. Drawing on Dedekind and Cantor among other

avant-garde mathematicians of the time, Royce argues that “an

Infinite Multitude can, without contradiction, be viewed as de-

terminately real” (World 1: 476). Infinity can be a “well-ordered

series” rather than a sprawling additive arrow."


Ham:

There is simply no way that the differentiated, evolutionary system we call
> "existence" can be equated to Ultimate Reality.  If you believe, as I do,
> that a transcendent source is prerequisite for existence, then "existence"'
> is no longer viewed as the predominant mode of reality
>
>
John:

 What I get from  Royce makes a good argument for equating ultimate reality
with existence.  His map within a map is crafted to do exactly that.  He
goes on for pages and page tho, reading Peter's explanatory philosophology
comes in real handy.

John prev.


> 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?
>>
>
>
Ham:



> You might as well say that Reality is a "high quality idea" and be done
> with it.



John:

Ham!  Of course Reality is a high quality idea!  That's my whole main point
in all this.  I guess that means I'm done with it?

Ham:

But I sense that this would not satisfy you.


John:

Your sense is off.  It satisfies me immensely.  On many levels.

Ham:

Actually, we are in agreement on more than I would have expected, John.
>  Moreover, the problematic issues -- nothingness and the necessity of a
> primary source --  seem to be problems for everyone I've talked to.  So, on
> the whole, I consider this a productive dialogue.  Perhaps the most
> satisfying one I've had in my six years on this forum.
>
>
John:

Well needless to say, I'm extremely happy and excited where my wanderings in
responses to your proddings have taken me, Ham.  So "productive dialogue"
indeed.

Many thanks.