[MD] Essentialism - based in SOM?

[Ham Priday]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:44 PM, David Harding davidjharding at gmail.com wrote:


> Hi Ham,
>
> I have renamed the discussion as it appears to me that any discussion
> about the MOQ with you will inevitably lead to Essentialism.
>
> That being the case I'd like to ask - How much time did you spend
> trying to understand the MOQ before you rested that understanding
> on Essentialism, Or have you encountered the MOQ after your ideas
> about Essentialism were formed?
>
> Also, are you open to something better, if it exists, than Essentialism?

I was fascinated by philosophical ideas before I knew what philosophy was. 
This interest took shape as an intellectual quest after taking classes in 
philosophy and logic as electives in college.  Existentialism and New Age 
mysticism were the rage in the 50s, and I began reading Sartre and Watts 
while acquainting myself with Eckhart, Aquinas, Tillich, Heidegger, James, 
Russell, and Pearce, among the authors best known to the Pirsigians.  The 
philosophy of Essence developed sporadically, until the mid-90s, when I 
realized that my ontology was a rebuttal of existentialism and named it 
Essentialism.  Since Desire and Value figured prominently in my ontogeny, I 
began researching these topics for a website I started putting together in 
2001, when I stumbled upon Pirsig's Quality thesis.  Actually, I joined the 
MD the following year at the author's suggestion in response to my query 
letter.

Yes, I'm always open to new ideas, although "something better" for me at 
this juncture would have to be an ontology that makes more sense.  And, thus 
far, I've found nothing that tops Essentialism in that regard.

> Saying that individuals are animal entities and also that ideas don't
> exist in the objective sense sounds to me like your linking everything
> back to the objective word.
>
> In the MOQ this is unnecessary. Ideas like societies are subjective
> and do exist. Subjective things are more real than the objects they
> sometimes describe.

On the contrary, I'm clearing the objective world of precepts that have to 
do with thoughts and emotions which are subjective (i.e., proprietary), 
rather than existential, in nature.

[H. previously]:
>> My existentially wanting something better does not alter fundamental
>> Reality. You assume that Quality is forever bettering itself, which 
>> implies
>> that it never achieves the 'summum bonum' it seeks.

> Or it achieves it often?  I like better things. Don't you?

Certainly.  But "things" are only MY reality.  The fact that I look for 
'better things for better living'  suggests that I am part of a process 
called existence, which is a stream of valuistic impressions of which I am 
but a temporary locus.

> Existentialism is a result of the depressing SOM mindset that
> everything is ultimately an object. The MOQ refutes this and
> says that value is ultimate and not objects.

Agreed.  Any philosopher who insists that existence precedes essence has 
made Being his fundamental reality.  Essentialism takes the opposite view: 
Being is an experiential construct of essential Value.

> Moreover, if I understand Essentialism correctly I will always be an
> 'experiential entity' so by your own reasoning I will always be depressed.
> As I have said, it is depressing because it is very closed and not open
> to something better.

I'm not a psychologist, David, but my understanding of clinical depression 
would rule out philosophy as a causative factor.  Human beings are not gods, 
nor were we promised that life would be a rose garden.  What we are granted 
as sensible creatures is a full spectrum of good and bad experiences so that 
we can choose those values which best fulfill our desire for meaning and 
contentment.  Perhaps you should heed Socrates' admonition "know theyself", 
and re-examine the values you strive for.  It may be that they are out of 
balance.  (Rationality can help you there.)

[H.]
>> I can define Essence as "the absolute uncreated source of all that is."
>> Why can't you define Quality?

> I can. Saying that quality can be both defined and undefined is
> a definition of Quality.

If I were an English professor like Pirsig, you wouldn't get.a passing grade 
for that "definition".

[H.]
>> I think whatever needs "to be replaced  by something better"
>> is not good enough to be the Absolute Source.

> Apart from a certain irony to the above sentence - in the MOQ anything
> which needs to be replaced by something better is static quality and not
> the ultimate source.

Then you've made my point, David:.
1. Static quality cannot be the ultimate source because it is derivative.
2. Dynamic Quality cannot be the ultimate source because it is progessive.
Ergo: "Quality" is the wrong term for ultimate source.

(And, for a philosopher, that can be very depressing!)

Essentially speaking,
Ham