[MD] atheistic and content

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Ham, 

On 14 Mar 2010 at 14:16, Ham Priday wrote:

> On 13 Mar 2010 at 8:33 PM, Platt Holden wrote:
 
> > Basic assumptions. I think you're saying that "being" depends on the
> > "beings" of time and space.  Of course, this begs the question of what
> > conditions are necessary for the beings of time and space? I presume
> > this where your "Essence" makes its appearance.
> 
> [Ham, previously]:
> > "Becoming" is the process whereby relational existence occurs (or is
> > perceived).  As human beings, you and I are sensible agents "becoming"
> > aware of otherness. What we value of this otherness is experienced as
> > "being".
> 
> [Platt]:
> > I take it then that "being" in addition to the above conditions requires
> > "sensible agents," or more specifically, "value sensitive agents" and
> > "otherness."  So we have the following conditions necessary for being,
> > according to Ham:
> >
> > Time
> > Space
> > Value
> > Otherness
> > Sensitive Agents
> >
> > By comparison, Pirsig sees only one of the above conditions necessary
> > for being, namely, Value. And he wrote a book, Lila, explaining why he
> > believes that to be the case.
> >
> > The meta-theoretical principle of Occam's Razor says in effect: "When
> > competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle
> > recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest
> > assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently
> > answering the question."  (Wikipedia)

Ham 
> It is you who are begging the question by counting the attributes of 
> existence, not metaphysical principles.  This complicates things 
> unneccesarily. 

Platt
I listed the conditions (requirements) you cited for "being, i.e., existence. 
If you are saying "being" and "existence" are different, please explain 
the difference. If you prefer "reality" instead of either "being" or 
"existence," I'll go along with that.

Ham
> Time, Space, and Value are not "requirements" for becoming 
> but conditional aspects of cognizant experience

Platt
But, you have insisted all along that without cognizant experience there 
is no being, existence, reality. Or am I mistaken? (By "cognizant 
experience" I presume you mean "human experience," eliminating my 
cat, UTOE, from reality.) Incidentally, what is the difference between a 
"requirement" and a "conditional aspect?"

 Ham
>The beginning of 
> numerality is duality, and the primary split or fundamental division is 
> between Sensibility and Otherness.  Once that dichotomy is actuated, the 
> differentiation of sensing and otherness becomes experiential existence 
> (i.e., individuated 'selves' experiencing multiplistic beingness).

Platt
What is the difference between "experiential existence" and 
"existence?" And, who "actuated" the division of the One (Essence) into 
Sensibility (Subject) and Otherness (Object). Is it Ham? Descartes? the 
Greeks? All of the above? 
 
Ham 
> Look, MoQ's Quality has Value in common with Essentialism.  The principle 
> difference is that Pirsig posited Quality as the "beginning and end all" of 
> reality, whereas I have put Value into a metaphysical context (because it 
> cannot stand alone).

Platt
What is outside a "metaphysical context?" In your view as I understand 
it, nothing, including Essence, exists outside a metaphysical context 
provided by "experiencing agents," "individuated selves" or "cognizant 
subjects." (It's confusing, Ham, when you use different words to mean 
the same thing, like a shovel in one place, a spade in another, and a 
dirt-moving instrument in another.) 

Look. Quality can stand alone as the One as well as your Essence can. 
Both can be divided into subjects and objects. As Pirsig points out, there 
are many ways that undivided experience can be split. The question is, 
"Which way is best?" You chose the tried and true conservative  
subject/object split. Pirsig chose the innovative Dynamic/static value 
split and explained in Lila why it is the better choice. He has convinced a 
lot of us that his first division provides a better account of "being" than 
other divisions. Personally, Occam's razor goes a long way to 
convincing me his metaphysics is on the right track. 

Best regards,
Platt