[MD] reflection on ham

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

> Quote- Hannibal lector , in 'silence of the lambs,'
> "What are things in themselves, Clarice,...what are things in their 
> nature?"
>
> Lector was taking a view in the human mind, clearly showing in the movie
> the ability to predict mindpatterns, the ability to predict behaviour in 
> thinking.
> Lector showed it to be in the brain of Clarice. He predicted Clarice's 
> feelings
> by making the perfect balance between ratio/irratio, the balance between
> empathy/sympathy, the balance between intellect/sense.

Okay, the quote seemed familiar but I'd forgotten the source.  Actually I 
did see Silence of the Lambs some time ago -- a rather gruesome human being, 
that Lector!  That you were able to relate his rhetorical question to the 
philosophy of Essence is remarkable.

Considered epistemically, "Essence" is what we experience valuistically as 
objects (i.e., discrete phenomena).  At least this is how I interpret it. 
It isn't that "things are essences"; rather, our experience of Essence 
(otherness) is derived from essential value differentiated by nothingness. 
The "nothingness" is what divides subjective sensibility from objective 
otherness (being), and it reflects the Self/Other dichotomy which Pirsigians 
reject.

Sartre described nothingness as "a hole in the heart of Being".  But the 
existentialists
say Existence precedes Essence, whereas I take the reverse position. 
Because I believe we are "negates" of Essence, I see nothingness as the 
(conscious) heart of man which penetrates Value to experience differentiated 
("patterned" for MoQists) Being.

In a nutshell, there is only one Essence.  All otherness is divided by 
nothingness to actualize the appearance of "essents", or existents, which 
constitute our existential reality.  So, ontologically speaking, 
value-sensibility and nothingness are the ground of existence, and physical 
objects are only the space/time appearances created by this 
value/nothingness interaction.

I realize I'm throwing back a lot more than you asked for, Adrie.  It's my 
way of hastening the point at which you and I clash (to avoid wasting time). 
Meantime, I expect you'll have some comments which I'll be happy to address. 
This is Memorial Day weekend for us Americans, so feel free to fire away 
;-).

Hoping to be essentially yours,
Ham

(Adrie)
I think that i disagree on the totality.
considered epistemically,i'leave it out, its a bit overkillcapacity, coming from
sartre(same goes for ontology).been reading sartre long time ago, extreme intellect
but uses 600 words to explain only two,in an invalid approach.
In his timeframe it made sence , it does not nowedays.

(Ham)
"Essence" is what we experience valuistically as 
objects (i.e., discrete phenomena).
(Adrie)
 Difficult to understand, as in 'the container
"Phenomena" is to big to explain in one phrase'
(Ham)
It isn't that "things are essences"; rather, our experience of Essence 
(otherness) is derived from essential value differentiated by nothingness. 
The "nothingness" is what divides subjective sensibility from objective 
otherness (being), and it reflects the Self/Other dichotomy which Pirsigians 
reject.

(Adrie)

Well , consider this , in realism, and abstraktion under realism there are no
'Pirsigians'
Only Mr Pirsig himself is a Pirsigian, the Pirsigians you are pointing out, are readers
and some are readers/thinkers.Some are even metaphysikal thinkers.

(Ham)
Sartre described nothingness as "a hole in the heart of Being".  But the 
existentialists
say Existence precedes Essence, whereas I take the reverse position. 
Because I believe we are "negates" of Essence, I see nothingness as the 
(conscious) heart of man which penetrates Value to experience differentiated 
("patterned" for MoQists) Being.

(Adrie)
"Nothingness", Pirsig is not a promotor of this term , nor am i.  (and  yes listers , i am aware of the fact that Pirsig
incorporated the term into the qualitycontainer.) needless to comment.
I reject the word nothingness, used now, in this optic.
Nottingness cannot be defined , if you try to define it,it will seize to being nothingness.
Filling in the properties, the boudarys, the wrapper-lines,is killing the nothingness.
Accepting this is killing quality.
Still, i'm going to use it , once, for now to rephrase Sartre's misconception.

"Nothingness is a hole in a hole"
"the only space that is empty space is metaphysikal empty space" quoting myself.

(Ham)
But the 
existentialists
say Existence precedes Essence, whereas I take the reverse position. 
Because I believe we are "negates" of Essence, I see nothingness as the 
(conscious) heart of man which penetrates Value to experience differentiated 
("patterned" for MoQists) Being.

(Adrie)

I am not an existencialist, but truly, existence precedes essence.
If Not, then this is a biblical/theological argumentation.
(ham)
Because I believe we are "negates" of Essence, I see nothingness as the 
(conscious) heart of man which penetrates Value to experience differentiated 
("patterned" for MoQists) Being.
(adrie)
This makes no sense at all.but i like differentiated expirience, nice rhetorics.

(Ham)
In a nutshell, there is only one Essence.

(Adrie)
Biblical/theological, mind this , i reject biblical,i reject the sentence that there is only one....
this does not implicate however , that i'm rejecting the possibility of a god/creator possibility.
but i reject all intermediate explanations for it,as in "people intermediators"

(Ham)
All otherness is divided by 
nothingness to actualize the appearance of "essents", or existents, which 
constitute our existential reality.  So, ontologically speaking, 
value-sensibility and nothingness are the ground of existence, and physical 
objects are only the space/time appearances created by this 
value/nothingness interaction.

(adrie)
This makes no sense.


So , overlooking my comments , the question arises, is this a hostile interaction towards your 
projection? no, it is not.
I do not see a valid product in it.it lacks content.
If you like to write, being an author,then you'r in desperate need for a product.

Any thinking , metaphysikal thinking, other.. will do more for you then theology, consider "awareness"
consider"intellect", the list is almost endless.

(Ham)
I realize I'm throwing back a lot more than you asked for, Adrie.  It's my 
way of hastening the point at which you and I clash (to avoid wasting time). 
Meantime, I expect you'll have some comments which I'll be happy to address

(Adrie)
I need to be harsh on this , for your own good, still think we can interact freely.
Okay , hope this doesnt hurt. I did interact on this matter,because you are most probably an honest man
carrying a difficult and valid/valuable question" What are things in themselves", is what Pirsig drove towards
understanding quality.
Pirsig did not reject the path of belief, i dont either, but its simply not in my container.
Greetz , Adrie.