[MD] reflection on Ham

[Fam. Kintziger-Karaca]

HI GANG
> 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.
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.



(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


I need to be harsh on this , for your own good, still think we can interact freely.
Okay , hope this doesnt hurt.i really do.
Greetz , Adrie.
Message-ID: <24D9B3458B2649CF97FD762EF3C43FB0 at hamPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
reply-type=original


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 

I do not think that we reached an impasse, Ham, but this is going to be difficult.
First of all, if we are going to eat an elephant, i think we have to do it in peaces.
But seriously , Ham, what i see here....is a hurd of elephants.
Been thinking about your issue's today on my job,lets talk , at first about some issue's.

Quote Ham

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.

Comment adrie,

Mr Pirsig is a Philosofer/author, thinking and writing books,....
He has done this with briljance.
The summarys and conclusions he made on earlier philosophical works are truly
pearls on the field of literature and metapysiks.it is true that they contain
earlier empirical evidence,thinkingpatterns,but Pirsig never pirated in on previous knowledge.
If and when he used earlier work,(as in analysing Plato) he improved it,mostly by retracting the misconceptions in it.

Ham


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.

comment adrie,

Mr Pirsig is a Philosofer/author, thinking and writing books,....
there has never been a moment in time , that Mr Pirsig told to his audience,
i am god , baghwan, or a prophet.

Can i state again,"Mr Pirsig was only bringing his own Cautauqua's to the audience"
I used this declaration earlier , but this is of no importance here.

Is it allowable Ham, to reflect this question towards you, as a personal question?
are you carrying your own Catauqua's to the audience?..i'm not going to insist on the possible answer.
I will leave this for an open-end question.


Ham
 I'm disappointed more by your 
unwarranted rejection of
an absolute source on theological grounds.

Adrie 

This is not what i said nor declared


I said this, and probably i was not very clear on it.

> 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".

okay this is what i used,
"people intermediators" as in all agents, representatives, whitnesses, false prophets....."

no, i do not reject the possibility of a creator, but i will not have the discussion,who created the creator?
and...is it a qualigod?( i going to come back on the qualigodconcept later).
simply, no.

Ham
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.

Mr pirsig did never oppose to religion, and states it clearly, that the moq is not rejecting it.

Not in his optic , but in mine solely, i do not dissaprove your search, i think this is of value for you.
but i do not accept it to be projected towards me.

Bias, i think i will disregard this issue , it is a non-issue

so, for today i am tired , and i'm having some legal issue's here , pff.taking a lot of my time.
Need to read a paper on positron annihilation, did not want to mention it , but as i was thinking of it,
i was thinking about the positron Quality question, does it have quality?
i was thinking of it in the way of a simple seed, a little plant seed.
taking away the quality out of the seed,......all quality it posseses, then, is it still a seed , wil it grow?
WILL it GROW? without quality? i dont think so, so a positron has quality.

is a word as Quality , an indecent proposal towards the creator if we are asking for this item?
is it allowable to ask that quality is in the basic toolset of the creator? or was it always present?
then the creator was responding to quality...........

Greetz, Adrie