[MD] atheistic and content

[Ham Priday]

Hi 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.

I'm having the same problem with you as I do with Marsha.  She is looking to 
find her self.  You are trying to identify reality.  Pirsigians are a 
strange lot; they have a mindset that resists common sense.

I'm saying that existence is the appearance of being.  It is fundamentally 
comprised of two components: Sensibility (individualized as proprietary 
awareness) and Otherness (differentiated as pluralistic beingness).  How can 
such a simple duality
confound your intellect?

> 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?"

I'll answer your second question first.  A "condition" is a given aspect 
(attribute or state) of existence.  In some cases, one condition may be 
contingent upon another.  A "requirement" is what is needed to create or 
actualize that state.  I've defined existence (above) as consisting of 
Sensibility and Otherness.  Neither contingency creates itself; they are 
both actualized by negation of the Primary Source.  (I'll skip the dynamics 
of "negation", as well as the special distinction Pirsig makes between 
"dynamic" and "static", as these theories provoke controversy that only 
complicates the issue.)

I maintain that experience creates the appearance of being that we call 
existence.  I have never said that without experience there is no reality. 
But that, of course, depends on how you define Reality.  Is it the 
appearance of pluralistic being?  If so, you have no problem with the 
so-called SOM worldview.  Pirsig defines it as Quality, so I assume that's 
your Reality.

My problem with the MoQ is that the existence of Quality has no ontology. 
The author posits no progenitor or source for Quality.  It simply is (has 
been) always there in the cosmos, and it's continually "moving toward 
betterness".  The fact that creatures experience Quality is only incidental, 
even though they are "patterns" of it..

> 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?

Existence IS experiential, so these terms are synomous. (I sometimes use 
"experiential existence" as a reminder that experience creates existence.) 
As I stated above, Essence is the "actuator" of the primary division (i.e., 
the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy).  As to who came up with this 
hypothesis, I would have to say Ham with considerable help from the likes of 
Plotinus, Cusanus, Eckhart, and Hegel, among others.

> 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.)

Sorry to have confused you.  I don't know where you got the idea that 
"nothing exists outside a metaphysical context."  When I said "I have put 
Value into a metaphysical context." I meant that I have gone a step further 
than Pirsig by positing Value as derived from the primary source (Essence). 
You can read "metaphysical context" to mean "in a metaphysical sense" or 
"from a metaphyical standpoint".  From an existential standpoint "selves" 
are individuated, "agents" are experiencing subjects, and subjects are 
"cognizant".  Does that help?

> 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.

Epistemologically, Quality (Value) cannot stand alone but must be realized. 
Realization is what human sensibility does.  Maybe Pirsig can divide Quality 
into subjects and objects; I can't.  The answer to "which is best?" is a 
subjective judgment based on what sounds or feels good.  If you're searching 
for Truth, "which is right or more logical" is the criterion you'll use. 
Pirsig has won converts by perpetrating the notion of "betterness" as a 
cosmic principle, which "feels good" but is unsubstantiated.  (I don't need 
to remind you that Socialism also feels good to many people.)   Occam's 
razor supports no particular division or hypothesis; it only argues for 
simplicity over complexity.

I no longer hold out hope for changing your mind, Platt.  Now I'm simply 
trying to ensure that you understand my position correctly.

Regards,
Ham