[MD] logically incoherent

[MarshaV]

On Sep 7, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Ham Priday wrote:

> 
> On Tuesday, 9/06/11 at 5:14 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote.
> 
>> Hello Ham,
>> 
>> Ron is clinging to a silly, little boy's notion of illusion for his own
>> purposes.  Here's Ms. Albahari's short, but formal definition:
>> 
>>   "When X purports (through a medium of appearance) to exist
>>    in manner F, to person P, X-as-F is illusory when X does not
>>    really exist in manner F."
>> 
>> She explains "Most generally, an illusion involves a conflict between
>> appearance and reality.  Sometimes, X, appears to be the case,
>> but there is something about S that does not reflect reality' it
>> MISLEADS the person to whom it appears.  In other words,
>> X PURPORTS, through the appearance, to exist in a particular
>> manner, than X does NOT REALLY exist in the purported manner."
> 
> Albahari seems to be saying that what we experience is a "distortion" or misrepresentation of what is real.  

No, I do not agree with your interpretation that she points to "distortion" or "misrepresentation", only that it does not exist as purported.


> This is obviously true.  We know that things are not what they appear to be.  Parmenides explained the "world of appearances", in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful.  This inspired Plato to theorize that things were really "essences" that we couldn't know, until Kant came along and described physical reality as "things-in-themselves".  Later, Bishop Berkeley undertook to prove that there is no such thing as matter at all, that the world consists of nothing but "minds and their ideas".  (Pirsig's MoQ basically  converts this self/other dualism to Quality and its patterns.)
> 
> Then Kierkegaard extended Christology to the philosophical view that reality cannot be fully comprehended by reason because human existence is always involved in choices that are absurd from a rational viewpoint.  He conceived of each person as a unique human being responsible for his/her own actions, which implies that one's existence creates one's essence, turning metaphysics upside down and sparking a new movment called Existentialism. Kierkegaard's concepts were developed in the 20th century by Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Gabriel Marcel.

Your version of the history of philosophy?  I wonder how many different ways the history of philosophy can be described.    

The basis of the Reality within the MoQ is Quality(DQ(unpatterned)/sq(patterned)).


> In my opinion, Parmenides had it right in the first place.  We do live in a world of appearances where being is presented finitely to the senses as differentiated phenomena and interpreted intellectually as existential reality.  But existence is a co-dependent reality whose primary contingencies are Sensibility and Otherness.  It cannot be reduced to a monism, nor can it exclude subjective awareness.  Existence is the actualized ("particularized", if you will) mode of the essential Whole which transcends it.  That Whole is uncreated, absolute, undifferentiated, and immutable.
> 
> There you have 'Essentialism in a nutshell'.  Pirsig would say it's metaphysics by a 'nut case', but I'm not discouraged.  I don't have all the answers, nor do I ever expect to.  But the worldview I have managed to garner from the wisdom of philosophy serves me well and convinces me that Value is my inextricable connection with Essence.

I am sure Mr. Pirsig has a great deal of respect for you.  I still think you and I may find agreement in the experience of 'pure awareness.'   The most important question: How does one stay directed towards Dynamic Quality? (I'm not sure of the equivalent terminology in Essentialism.) I think the answer is in staying in the state of 'pure awareness.'   


> I only wish that conviction could be imparted to the nihilists in this community.

Simply calling one a nihilist is an ad hominem argument and not worthy of being taken seriously.   


> Essentially yours,
> Ham



 Marsha


___