[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Tim --



> I haven't yet grasped your thoughts, maybe a back and forth
> - or two - will get me close.

Fine.  I'll do what I can.

[Ham, previously]:
> Quality to me means the worth or character of an observed person,
> thing, or event.  This business of treating Quality as a noun is
> metaphysically useless, unless you believe that quality can stand
> by itself, which it can't.

 [Tim]:
> This comes off very strong, and I don't know that you intended it that
> way.  Maybe...

Apparently it doesn't come off "strong" enough, since the Pirigians don't 
seem to understand that "Quality" does not stand alone but is a relative 
value placed on an experience.  Value and quality are relative by degree and 
in comparison with other objects experienced.  Notice that we normally use 
quality and value prepositionally: we say "the quality OF my car; the value 
OF money," etc.  This doesn't mean that quality or value is intrinsic to the 
thing itself, but rather that we sense value in the process of experiencing 
it.  Without this sensibility which IS inherent in us, there would be no 
value.  We are the sensible agents who bring value into the world 
objectively.

> Anyway, when dealing with the MoQ, I think of Quality as the word
> assigned to RMP's version of the thing which 'can stand by itself'.  For
> my part, I liked that word because when thinking of my 'something' -
> which can stand by itself - the first solid ground reached in unraveling
> it was recognition of some 'a quality' --- though, as a caveat, this may
> be too simple a picture if we are to come to a structure in metaphysics.

How often do you "deal with the MoQ" in your daily experience?  Does one 
need the MoQ to rate the workmanship, attractivness, or monetary worth of an 
observed item?  You would have a hard time convincing me that you can 
conceive of Quality or Value without a referent.

> Can inorganic matter serve as observing subject?  I'm almost certain
> that: yes; but I just want to make sure.  The reason is: there might
> always be a lowly sensible subject observing, somehow, Essential
> Qualities...

I know of no inorganic entity that has sensibility, let alone the capacity 
for awareness.  Plants and trees may exhibit sensitivity to temperature and 
drought conditions, but I doubt that we could call this conscious 
sensibiity.
Children and a few philosophers may believe that a rock rolls down a hill 
because it values the grassy environment below it.  Most adults have a more 
rational explanation for this behavior.

> Just to be sure: I still don't see a reason why lowly inorganic matter,
> and thus perhaps even intangible principles, are to be excluded from
> this selfness (even though they do not stand by themselves).  Their
> range of sensibility might be quite limited, but existent none-the-less.
> (Ham, please bear with me, I by no means intend to talk down by to you
> through this simplicity and repetition.)

The most obvious reason is that inorganic matter does not possess a nervous 
system to process sensory data.

> Ham, the main thing I want to challenge: "...because it is delineated by
> nothingness...".  For me, "nothing" has no place, because if it did, it
> would be 'something'.  So, I don't really know what you mean here.  On
> the other hand, I thought you captured this thought by saying "Essence
> has no 'other'".  Anyway, an explanation might be helpful.

If we could not separate one thing from another, our perception of the 
universe would be a monolithic other.
How do you distinguish the cup from the table it sits upon?  How do you 
separate yourself from the objective world external to you?  They are 
"different", you might say.  Well, what makes them different?  They are all 
made up of atoms and molecules, yet we don't distinguish these entities. 
Difference is a quantitive or qualitative separation (cleavage or emptiness) 
which we make intellectually (cognitively) in conjunction with experience. 
If we don't see the trees for the forest, we are cognitively impaired.

> I don't know if "essence" imprints any flavor to 'something'; I prefer
> 'something', concrete but undifferentiated, but perhaps all 'essence'
> implies is: essential.  Also, in my thinking, the 'essence' which "has
> no other", might have to give something of itself for us to be here.
> "Something is" seems to be, to the best of my capacity, true absolutely.

Undoubtedly "something is."  The metaphysical question is "what is it"?  If 
we take everything at face value, true reality is the totality of things and 
events in the universe.  If everyone believed that, there would have been no 
need for a primary source or a philosophy to explain it.  Early on, Bob 
Pirsig felt that "moral goodness" was the ultimate reality, and that 
everything experienced is derived from it.  Inasmuch as "betterness", 
"arête", and "excellence" were either archane or nonpoetic expressions of 
this goodness, he decided on "Quality" as the term for his primary source. 
Nowhere but in the MoQ thesis does Quality exist without a sensible agent.

Absolute Essence is the 'Not-other' because nothing exists apart from it. 
Difference is the "nothing that exists".
Nothingness is the negation of Essence that accounts for everything in this 
world of appearances.  Experiential reality is transitory, finite, and 
"essentially unreal" because its differentiating ground is nothingness. When 
we extract the value of otherness for our selves, we cancel out (or fill) 
this nothingness with the value of the Other.  (I call it 
'double-negation").  Drawn to the value of otherness by our innate 
sensibility, we attempt to satisfy our desire by penetrating the essent that 
it represents.  But, because we are negates (literal 'nothings'), reclaiming 
the value of an essent is a double-negation which makes the essent an object 
of our experience.  In other words, we "create" our world by converting our 
value-sensibility into the experience (appearance) of things and events that 
constitute our reality.

> Thanks for the effort!  Even if I don't hear back from you it got us
> a good way there..

You're quite welcome.  I haven't given up on you by a long shot, Tim!  But 
to comment on the rest of your post would exceed house limits.  So, I'll be 
back shortly.

Kindest regards,
Ham