[MD] Conduits of Value

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> I have been mulling over your Essentialism, to try to create some
> kind of metaphor or analogy which would help me comprehend it
> in an intellectual way.  I believe I have an awareness of what you
> are proposing, but getting that into words is not easy, as you know.
> The easiest way for me to further develop the awareness is to
> create a picture of such a thing.  This then allows further manipulation
> of the concept.  I am presenting this in the MOQ forum since
> I believe it is relevant.

The paradigm or simile is a useful aid to comprehension, and I welcome your 
efforts in this direction.
Despite its differences with Pirsig's thesis, I too believe the essentialist 
ontology is relevant here, and it's my major reason for pursuing it against 
all odds.  I have my own ideas as to how it relates to the MOQ, but I would 
rather that the aficionados discover this for themselves, if they are so 
inclined.  (We shall see.)

> I have the following picture to present you.  Please keep in mind, that
> it is vague at best, just a beginning.  Also, try not to dismiss it 
> outright
> without trying to see where I am trying to go.  It would seem to me that
> we have a negation of absolute essence which presents as differentiation.
> The value of this differentiation is then realized by reversing such 
> negation
> through an object outside of our personal awareness.  That is outside
> the body, for now.  But it can go deeper than that.  So we have a
> negation and then double negation to use your terminology.

For a "beginning" this is an excellent interpretation.  I especially like 
the "negation presents as differentiation" postulate as you've worded it. 
One minor correction: Although differentiation makes possible the 
realization of value, it is not the source of value, nor is an object 
"outside of awareness."
Realization of essential value is primary to experience, and the object is a 
finite representation of that value.  What we (as the agents of value) 
negate is the "otherness" of our space/time experience, which actualizes the 
finite being whose particular value we appropriate to satisfy our desire. 
(I don't know if it's possible to analogize the dynamics of value, but feel 
free to try!)

> One way to view this is as "Absolute Essence connecting to itself".
> For whatever reason, we are the conduit for such a connection.
> That is that "other" is connected back to Absolute Essence through us.
> Such connection is through our sensibilities.  Now this may seem
> kind of weird, the absolute would need to connect with itself.  One
> could also see it as the absolute seeing itself.  So, let's take a super
> simple example, of such a connection.  We have absolute essence
> separated from itself like two poles on an electrical circuit.  So
> Essence on one side, and Essence on the other.  We can call one
> side internal to us, and the other external (just for the analogy).
> When we realize the value of the external object, we connect it
> to the internal.  There is a flow of sensibility which we realize by 
> forming
> the connection.  In that sense, we are a wire, and the flow of Essence to
> Essence is what we feel.  We realize a cake through our senses of sight,
> smell, taste, and touch.  We connect the essence of cake to Absolute
> essence.  Both sides are Absolute, and we are the wire in between.

I like the concept of Essence "connecting with itself", although the 
electric circuit analogy may be a bit obtuse for the average reader.  What 
if there's a short circuit, and you blow the fuse?  (Just kidding.)

> This would encompass the negation and double negation aspect.  Another
> permutation of the analogy would be to envision two chambers (both of
> which are Essence).  Through Realization, we connect the two chambers
> through a tube, and sense the Value flowing between.  Now there are many
> possible analogies for what this tube or wire is, one could be time 
> itself.
>
> So, Ham, let me know if this makes any sense at all.  I am happy to 
> provide
> more insight if I can.

It makes a lot of sense to me.  The question is: Will it make sense to the 
average Pirsigian?  For "differentiating" purposes, I've borrowed some 
special terms from Sartre and the existentialists which, I think, avoids 
some of the redundancy you've run into, vis-a-vis Essence and Existence. 
For example, I call the "finite essence" that we experience valuistically as 
beingness (otherness) "essent".  I refer to the 'I' or "self", which is not 
essence, as the "negate".  I also distinguish "experience" from the 
"sensibility" which is primary to it.  These terms may help you formulate 
equations or syllogisms should you intend to pursue this strategy on my 
behalf.

I admire your creativity on a difficult subject, Mark.  Without inventing 
analogies, I see an ongoing relationship between the 'differential' and the 
'holistic' modalities of Essence whereby Absolute Sensibility is completed 
or "perfected".  (I've even alluded to this in my thesis.)  But it is going 
way out on a limb to suggest a metaphysical teleology that we can only 
conjecture.  I'm not saying it's wrong, but I know many here would criticize 
such allusions as injecting "theism" into an ontology where it isn't called 
for.

You seem to have grasped the overall concept, and that is most gratifying to 
me.  You might also check out my Q&A page at 
http://www.essentialism.net/FAQs.htm which deals with some of the more 
controversal points of Essentialism.  (It displays out of line on Mozilla 
browsers but is still readable and may spark more original ideas.)  Any 
suggestions you can offer toward making this philosophy more comprehensible 
would be doing me a great service.

Meantime, thanks so much for your understanding and thoughtful analysis, 
Mark.

Essentially yours,
Ham