[MD] reflection on ham

[Ham Priday]

Evening, Adrie --


> I think that I disagree on the totality considered epistemically,
> I 'leave it out, it's a bit overkill capacity, 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 sense,
> it does not nowadays.

I only mentioned Sartre because of his "hole in the heart of being" concept, 
which I consider a reasonable analogy for nothingness.  In another part of 
'Being and Nothingness' he uses the phrase "shot through with nothingness", 
which is even better:
If differentiated experience can be imagined as a fragmented image of 
"totality" or the Absolute, we can intuit what it is like without the 
cracks. The "cracks" reflect our own nothingness, but we experience 
otherness as discrete "beings" and "events' in process.  It is the 
nothingness (finitely differentiated nature) of experience that makes our 
worldview a diversity of objects.  Only a metaphysical perspective of 
Oneness can eliminate the cracks in this empirical view and enable us to 
conceptualize the Absolute Source.

> "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[?].
> Nothingness cannot be defined, if you try to define it,
> it will seize to being nothingness.
> Filling in the properties, the boundaries, 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 metaphysical empty space"
> quoting myself.

Perhaps I've said too much.  But, as to your points, "nothingness" can be 
defined empirically as the absence of "being", or that which is not 
experienced.  Nothingness cannot be defined in the absolute sense, unless, 
like some others here, you regard the Absolute as nothing.  I did not 
mention "quality", so I'm bewildered by your complaint that my conception 
"kills" it.  I maintain that inasmuch as the essence of experience is Value 
(= quality), our construct of existential reality is value-based.

> I am not an existentialist, but truly, existence precedes essence.
> If Not, then this is a biblical/theological argumentation.

Why must the concept of an Absolute Source be derived from the Bible or 
theology?
In the first place, the God of Judeo-Christianity was not depicted as 
"absolute" but as a Being.  Not even a 'Supreme Being' can be absolute.  In 
the second place, there can be only one True Reality; the appearance of 
otherness being a but a shadow of Essence differentiated by our nothingness.

> 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".

Is it the "sentence" that you reject or the concept?  If it's the concept, 
then I assume you accept the idea of a multiform or polytheistic creator.  I 
don't know what you mean by "people intermediators."  Individuals "mediate" 
value by their experience of finitude.  If you reject that, how can you 
accept Pirsig's concept of value patterns?

 [Ham, previously]:
> 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 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're in desperate
> need for a product.

The "product" or "content" of cognizance is empirical reality, Adrie.
I'm merely explaining the epistemology of knowledge, not the universal 
worldview which is self-evident to all of us.

> Any thinking, metaphysical thinking, other.. will do more for you
> than theology.  Consider "awareness", consider"intellect", the list is
> almost endless.

Again, I'm not discussing theology.  It is your personal aversion to 
religion and theology that compels you to pin that label on me.  I fear your 
bias is showing, Adrie, and it is proving to be a mental block.

> I need to be harsh on this, for your own good, still think
> we can interact freely. Okay, hope this doesn't 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 don't either, but it's simply not in my container.

Et tu, Adrie?  "Containers" are the subject of another thread.  No, I'm not 
"hurt" by your frankness; I expected it.  I'm disappointed more by your 
unwarranted rejection of
an absolute source on theological grounds.  Pirsig tried to do away with 
subjects and "things" by making both "patterns of Quality".  He had already 
discounted Kant's "things-in-themselves."

Don't you see that my ontology is essentially the same as the MoQ, except 
for the words: Experienced objects are intellectual constructs of Value? 
But while Value can be differentiated and quantified by a sensible agent, 
the Essence from which it is derived cannot.  Because the Quality hierarchy 
requires a cognizant subject, the MoQ thesis never rises above empirical 
existence.  Pirsig's Dynamic/Static paradigm doesn't help, either.

I guess this is where we reach the impasse I predicted.  As far as I'm 
concerned, what I have stated is still open to discussion or further 
clarification.  However, don't expect me to change my ontology to 
accommodate Pirsig's incomplete thesis or your anti-theist biases.

Thanks, Adrie, and have a pleasant week.
--Ham