[MD] Ham's theory of Truth

[Ham Priday]

Greetings Mary --


[Marsha, previously]:
> I understand the only way towards an Ultimate Truth is to discover the
> falseness of static patterns(experience): not this, not that.   There
> is no permanence to static patterns(experience) so in what sense could
> they ever be true.  Could it be that patterns that last longer are
> somehow more true?  But that would mean time is the measure of truth,
> and time is itself a static pattern of value.

[Mary Replies]:
> Yes.  We would do well to contemplate the idea that time itself
> is a static pattern of value.
>
> Through SOM we arrived at the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> This should tell us that there was a "time" when time was meaningless.
> All the static patterns built up on top of this idea of time are false.
> The foundation upon which these patterns are built is clay.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us only that beyond the sensible 
range of finitude (i.e., the quanta level) the more precisely the position 
of a particle is given, the less precisely can one say what its momentum is. 
This principle demonstrates a limitation of experience, rather than 
qualifying the "time stream" as such.  Actually, Heisenberg himself 
discussed the possibility that behind our observational data might be a 
hidden reality in which quantum systems have definite values for position 
and momentum, unaffected by the uncertainty relations.  He dismissed this 
conception as meaningless speculation because, as he said, "the aim of 
physics is only to describe observable data."

Classical Philosophy has given us the maxim that nothing can come from 
nothing.  If you believe this, then the space/time world of appearances 
ultimately alludes to a fundamental or True Reality.  Otherwise, you fall 
into the camp which rejects any reality as "true".  A system of 
interrelating things or "patterns" that depend on each other for their 
existence without a primary source describes the paradox of infinite 
regression -- a logical fallacy.

I'm not sure about you, Mary, but I fear that Marsha has succumbed to this 
nihilistic view.  She will try to deny it on the ground that she believes in 
'Quality'.  But Quality (Value) can only be realized experientially, so it 
is no less a "pattern" than is the experiencing subject.  And, although 
Pirsig could have posited his 'DQ' as the Primary Source, thus providing his 
quality thesis with a metaphysical foundation, he chose not to.

I am firmly convinced that an "Absolute Essence" is the primary, underlying 
source of all appearances.  The Essentialist ontology follows from this 
conviction, and it explains "existence" as the affect of a negated 
sensibility experiencing reality (otherness) as Being divided by 
nothingness.  The mode of subjective awareness is dimensional in time and 
space; and while objective experience is relative and provisional, the Value 
from which it is derived is absolute and unconditional.  In a metaphysical 
sense, Value, Sensibility, and Truth are One in Essence.  Ultimately, 
difference and contrariety are transcended by eliminating the nothingness 
that separates them.

I realize this is a lot to digest in a posted message.  But it has long been 
my view that had Mr. Pirsig gone that extra step by making Quality a 
relational aspect of Reality, rather than reality itself, he would have 
avoided most of the confusion surrounding the MoQ.

Thanks for your indulgence, Mary, and best regards,
Ham