[MD] Perennial Philosophy vs. empirical truth

[Ham Priday]

Hi Adrie [Joe Maurer quoted] --


> Ham, superb post.  I agree on all of it, Pirsig, Huxley and
> strangely but true also your conclusions and abstractions.
> Problem is this: I can think of it all in my language and in
> this context, but I want to type it and the words just
> don't come.
>
> I agree, especially on Pirsig's Huxley insight.
> And I furthermore strongly agree on your statement not to
> pursue to an endless level the DQ/SQ/truth/value train.
> Because of a reason, of course, not to become niche products
> in our own niche, trying to explain the working principles of
> a color to a mouse, or the layout of a computer to a bacterium,
> but missing the point entirely that, by adding properties,
> the original intrinsic properties are, in fact, downscaled
> to a lesser property.
>
> This is where Pirsig Broke free, not allowing to define boundaries for 
> Quality,
> desintegrating Quality by adding properties.
>
> MoQ! without definitions.

Thank you for the kind words, Adrie.  And please excuse me for editing them
slightly.  Mice and bacteria being taught principles they are incapable of 
understanding is a perfect analogy for man confronting an absolute source.

You're right that we can't put into words what we don't experience.  But it 
is possible to express an 'intuited' conception by means of analogy, 
metaphor, or even logic.  This is what I have tried to do with my 
metaphysical ontogeny.  It's difficult because people tend to react 
negatively toward certain terms and principles for reasons that have more to 
do with personal bias than with logic.  Here's an example from a response 
posted just after yours:

[Joe]:
> Are you equating DQ with a divine reality?  I don't think that is
> a correct understanding of what Pirsig meant by DQ.  I use DQ
> as an affirmation that there is a lot I don't know.
>
> Logic is a strange tool.  "The Absolute Source" sounds like a
> contradiction, since "Source" indicates "a beginning," and
> "Absolute" is without restriction.
>
> It is difficult for me to see the logic in a negation "not-other"
> becoming absolute Essence? If negation is eliminated, it seems
> that affirmation is also eliminated, and imagination is not
> a trustworthy source.

"Divine reality" was Huxley's term, not mine; but Joe understands it only in 
a religious context which surely could not be "what Pirsig meant by DQ." 
But if we're searching for Truth, what difference does it make if the analog 
stems from religion, philosophy, or science?

Joe also thinks Absolute Source is a contradiction because "Source indicates 
a beginning."  That may be true in SOM terminology, as in the originating 
point of a stream.  But "source" is derived from the French word  'sourdre' 
which connotes "surge" (to spring forth) rather than beginning.  Absolute 
does mean "without restriction", and this is why the negation principle is 
necessary to explain the ontogeny of Essence.  Existence (otherness) is not 
an "add-on" to the Absolute; it is a negation or reduction of absolute 
sensibility.

His last objection is simply a misunderstanding of my ontology.  "Not-other" 
does not "become absolute".  Instead, what is negated by Essence is affirmed 
by the realization of value.  This is what we, as value-sensible agents, do 
with each successive experience in life.  The "process" of existence comes 
full circle at the completion of the individual's life cycle, and with it 
comes the end of change and contrariety.

These are only speculations on my part, of course, but they seem to make 
sense of the empirical fact that life is an individual experience, despite 
the need for a primary source to support it.

Welcome to the forum, Adrie.  I can see that your perceptive comments are 
already sparking new ideas which can only increase interest in these 
discussions.

Best regards,
Ham