[MD] The other side of Value

[Ham Priday]

Memorial Day Greetings, Mark --



> Hi Ham,
> I enjoyed reading your elucidation (below) in response to Ron.
> Ron is requesting logical equations, which you do your best to
> provide him.  In my opinion, your explanations of Essence have
> gotten better over the last two years.  This is what dialogue and
> teaching bring out.
>
> I am not sure how Ron applies Western logic to MoQ, but I am
> sure he is met with the same difficulties. ...

Thanks, Mark. Yes, I'd like to think these eight years on the MD have helped 
to clarify my concepts and sharpened my explication.  (Perhaps that's what 
RMP foresaw when he suggested I might enjoy  participating.)  I'm also 
grateful for Horse's tolerance in allowing me to expound an ontology that, 
metaphysically at least, departs from the official doctrine.

Your analysis of Essence demonstrates that we've both made some progress in 
this direction.  My only reservation is your "trinitarian" view of my 
ontogeny: i.e., "Essence, the Absolute, and the Relational World."  I regard 
the essential Source as "absolute", without differentiating these terms. 
And, while the relational world is an "anomaly of appearances" (i.e., 
phenomenal), it too is One in reality as are its agents.  (There should be 
an adjective like "appeariential" that could be applied to Essence.)  Pirsig 
has his "levels" and "patterns" of Quality; but the principle of Oneness --  
that All is One in Essence -- is the hardest nut to crack in my exposition.

> If we have Essence on one side of Value, and our experiential world
> on the other side, this pretty much covers everything that is.  However,
> these two things are separate in Essentialism.  If we take everything
> away except for the separation, we are left with nothingness (which is
> something by definition).  So, what happens if we take nothingness out
> of the equation, what are we left with?  It would seem that cognizant
> beings (and everything else) would disappear.  Let me try an analogy
> other than math.  If we take two colors such as red and orange.
> Strictly speaking, there is nothing that separates these colors.  If
> we remove what separates or distinguishes them, what are we left with?

Technically speaking, the color orange is a mix of red and yellow.  And all 
colors are differentiated out of pure white light.  So a color analogy 
doesn't really help us understand the dynamics of nothingness, unless it's a 
black & white image.  In such an example we can readily see that the 
difference between objects projected is due to the nothingness ("not-light") 
that separates them.  The biblical phrase "we see through a glass darkly" 
conveys the idea, correctly IMO, that human experience is a projection of 
man's own nothingness onto reality.  The universe is differentiated because 
of the 'not-ness' of experience.  As you point out, "one is the negate of 
another," and reality is a reduction because we are negates of Essence).

> Yes, the opposite of Essence is Nothingness.  Using your senses
> analogy, most of the world is nothingness to us.  Realizing this opens
> up another dimension to thought.  As I see it, the free agent is the
> third leg on the stool (again three).  As far as I can tell, what you
> call the Negational Source, is what I call Dynamic Quality.  In this
> way, DQ is the creator, we, as sq, are the created always wondering
> how we got here.

Your conception is fine, Mark, and I'm in complete agreement with the first 
two sentences.  But you don't need that three-legged stool.  Most of REALITY 
is nothingness to us, and the "free agent" is a nothingness to Reality.  But 
since all nothingness is a negation of Essence, "the world" seen by the 
"agent" is only "appeariential" (i.e., non-real).  At best self/other 
existence is a "mode" of Essence, but Oneness prevails -- even in plurality.

> Personally I think you have a well thought out ontology.  I am not
> sure what Ron's ontology is, but it does not seem to be MoQ.
> Perhaps one day he will present MoQ in logical statements.  I could
> certainly learn from such an exposition.

I am of course more concerned with understanding Ron's logical rebuke of 
Essentialism than in seeing his logical support of Qualityism.  However --  
logic or no-logic -- you have done a superb job of reconciling both 
ontologies in a way that I would never before have imagined possible.  I owe 
much to you for any support I receive here, Mark.

Without a doubt, essentially yours,
Ham