[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --

> What you call nothingness as a limit, fails to explain
> movement, it does not account for the "why" of
> experience, it does not account for the good.

The appearance of movement in space, like change over time, is the mode of 
human experience.  Spacio-temporal perception of differentiated "otherness" 
is a dimensional aspect of experiential value and reflects the primary 
self/other dichotomy I mentioned previously.  All human experience is 
derived from the differentiation and objectification of Value, our 
sensibility of which is limited by the nothingness of our individuated 
awareness.

"Good" and "bad" are the moral extremes of the value perceived when it has 
been experientially objectivized.  Perhaps the best analogy for moral 
valuation is the crystal prism which bends white light differentially when 
projected.  Depending on what part of the spectral band we look at, we see a 
particular color.  Nothingness works "prismatically" in our perception of 
moral values, enabling us to "project" Essential Value into the world as an 
object or event representing a particular degree of goodness relative to 
other objects experienced.

> I have to stop the dialog here to explain how the term
> absolute may not be accurately applied to any subject
> matter which changes or modulates, that which is absolute
> is whole and complete, unmovable and unchangeable.

I agree with your definition, and have described Absolute Essence in 
precisely those terms.  However, you must understand that there are aspects 
of Essence, such as Value and Sensibility, which when screened by 
nothingness are discernable (sensible) apart from the Source.  Otherwise, it 
would be impossible to account for finite experience.  In the world of 
appearances that we call existence, the One is experienced as the Many. 
Experience and reason fragment sensible Value into aesthetic, moral, and 
intellectual categories of existential being.  This in no way diminishes the 
integrity or immutability of Absolute Essence.

> What explains that limitation of conscious sensibility? not nothingness if 
> the
> only way it exists is via the limitation.

I consider existence itself as a limited form of Essence.  After all, as 
Pirsig suggests, everything that exists is essentially Quality (Value), 
which is only one aspect of Essence.  As negated agents, we "see through 
this glass (prism?) darkly" in our experience of valuistic otherness. 
Indeed, we are incapable of accessing absolute truth, which affords us the 
freedom to choose.  To make that freedom meaningful, what we experience as 
existents is anything and everything BUT pure Essence.  Doesn't that suggest 
a purposeful role for each of us?

> You use the word trickery because it is the best solution
> you could come up with and you are sticking to it despite
> the fact you really have not read up on the traditional
> philosophical problems to begin with before you invested
> yourself in your thesis so heavily.

Not true, Ron.  I'm neither a scholar nor a logician, but I've read enough 
of the Greek philosophers to understand what they were about, as well as the 
major works of Eckhart, Descartes, Spinoza, Augustine, Nietzsche, 
Schopenhauer, James, Sartre, Russell, Lao-Tzu, Marcel, Rand, and Watts, not 
to mention Pirsig.  I think this has exposed me to most of the "problems" 
you speak of, although I'll admit I'm more intersted in solving problems 
than looking for them.

> The fact is that there is no logical justification for what you
> propose, logic is predicated on intelligibility. One must string
> together a consistant chain of meaning to form an intelligible
> idea. This hurts your rhetorically persuasive arguments and
> which is why they fail to garner adherents to your theory.

I believe it is fair to say that Essentialism is as "logical" as the MoQ. 
Again, logic applies only to relational systems, which Essence is not.  And 
since we are denied absolute truth, I base my ontology on what is most 
plausible in the light of reason.  Admittedly, I've had little success 
"garnering adherents" thus far, but I'm learning (from participants like 
you) what is needed to do this more effectively.

For example, I found your closing paragraph not only insightful but 
surprisingly in harmony with what I've been saying:

> The explanation I am fond of is:
> The way the one manifests itself as the many is through
> the limit of value.  Through the limit of the good.
> The act of preference from atomic bonds and forces
> to intellectual freewill.
> Nothingness from this point of view is that which is not
> valued highly or at all.
> The good, Value, Quality is then both one and many,
> the eternal act of preference is the one undefinable source.
> The good is the most general of explanations of primary
> being.  It means that all of reality is a moral act. All struggle
> a conflict of morals, no evil only variable types of good
> in conflict. It gives one cause to reflect and re-examine
> our reasons for our prejudices, our likes and dislikes
> and pause to reflect on seeing life as what is better
> rather than a reactionary response to evil and nothingness.

Amen, Ron.  More of this is worth the price of a few hard knocks at the 
outset!

Thanks for your interest and patience,
Ham