[MD] Indeterminism

[Ham Priday]

Evenin' Mark --

If it's OK by you, I'm going to copy only those statements that are 
problematic for me or that require my comment.  This will save on space and 
cut to the chase, as they say.

[Mark, previously]:
>> Any holographic projection requires a source, energy,
>> and a place for the hologram. Without these three, there is no
>> apparition. The source defines the picture, which I would assume
>> is Essence in your ontology. The energy is Value, and the picture
>> forms within the Sensible Subject. All three of these, while
>> conceptually independent are pragmatically dependent.

[New]:
> In the paragraph of mine above I provided the holographic
> analogy for my simple interpretation of Essentialism.  Keep in
> mind that the analogy is very sketchy.  The projector the
> possibility of all sorts of projections. (Don't  know if this
> captures Essence).

I have no problem with your hologram analogy, except possibly for the 
significance of
the number three (if it implies a metaphysical triad).  In my ontology I 
deal only with Oneness and Difference, the former signifying Absolute 
Essence and the latter, relational existence.  I also regard all difference 
as a product of the "contrariety" (Cusa's term) that results from the 
Self/Otherness dichotomy.  So if there is any "mystical number" in my 
hypothesis, it's 2.

> This whole existence we partake in is a mystical experience.
> However, since we compartmentalize and filter it so rigorously
> we tend to toss it aside as unremarkable.  This is where I would
> interject on a difference I see between your Essentialism and my
> Qualityism.  I do not see the existence of something hidden as
> necessary for ontology creation.  This does not mean that I am
> stuck in the phenomenal.  But if we are able to partake in all that
> there is (Clean the Doors of Perception, (not get rid of the doors
> altogether as some in this forum seem to be promoting)), there is
> no need to create some separate or hidden entity.  It is what is
> here, it is the sum total of all qualities and their interaction.  Much
> of these qualities and interaction can never be measured due to
> their nature, but they can be imagined and formulated in the abstract.

Essence is "hidden" only in the sense that it can't be experienced.  We 
sense Essence only in terms of its Value.  The individual self would have to 
BE Essence (which is metaphysically impossible) in order to possess absolute 
sensibility.  Existence is valuistic in nature; we experience it only 
because we are NOT Essence but autonomous, value-sensible agents.

[Mark's summation]:
> So, the distinct separation of Essence and Sensibility would be one
> difference, (but I am easy and perhaps there is some form of
> separation in my sense of reality.).  Another possible difference lies
> in Creating quality (or value), and experiencing quality.  As you
> know, I sense that what we experience as the quality of this life and
> the quality of all outside is an interpretation of something which can
> appear in all sorts of guises, most of which could be outside of our
> comprehension.  Matter can exist in many different forms, but
> ultimately it is all matter.  ...

Metaphysically speaking, all matter is "being" (i.e., that which exists). 
Neither Essence nor its Value is an existent (nor, for that matter, is the 
sensible self).

> Your "realization" is my "interpretation".  I do not find man to be
> that different from all else, except to us humans, of course.
> There are different modes of being.  One would be this living,
> another would be before we were born.  In each state we interpret
> reality very differently, but the Self does not come from nothing,
> now Nothingness is another story altogether.

No, the Self doesn't come from nothing; it comes from Essence.  I posit 
'selfness' as the coupling of essential Sensibility and Value.  And there is 
no "state of we" before we were born because "we" were non-existent.  By the 
same token, there is no "I" when we are dead, except for the Eternal "I AM".

> Otherwise, I proudly call my self an Essentialist, where Quality is
> Essence.  It is easier than saying a "Qualityist".  Essence is the
> Quality of all (all qualities come from Essence), and Quality is the
> Essence of all (all essence comes from Quality).

Mark, Essence does not come from Quality but is "uncreated", as I've said 
many times.  This is why using the word Quality as synomous with Value gets 
Pirsigians into epistemological difficulties.  It reminds me of Sartre and 
the existentialists' absurd assertion that "Being precedes Essence".  How 
can anything precede the primary Source?

> I have come a long way in our discussions, and if there are
> differences it is my gain since then we can discuss them.  Be assured,
> I will not insult Yo' Mama as some tend to resort to in this forum.

My comments above highlight the conceptual differences as I see them.  Do 
they provide enough grist for our discussion mill?  (Except for Joe Maurer's 
recent reference to "Essence" posing a "logistical problem" for him, you'll 
note that we've elicited total silence so far from the MoQ community.)

Onward, then, toward conciliation,
Ham