[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Ham Priday]

Marsha --


> I have not come to you for a solution, but with a couple of
> questions and an observation.  Putting aside the innumerable
> causes and conditions, I'd like to point to one process.
> My point was that to dichotomize self (subject) and other
> (object) is the result of consciousness, making both entities
> dependent on the process of conceptual construction.
> Also, to assign this reified "subject" as being "more fundamental"
> is a further indication of this process.

Is the self/other dichotomy really a "result of consciousness"?  If so, how 
do we get to consciousness from pure Essence or Quality?

I believe it's important to take the 'ex nihilo' factor into consideration 
when formulating an ontology or cosmology.  Otherwise, we're left without a 
fundamental cause or source.

You're plugging your own words into my statements.  I didn't say that the 
subject is "more fundamental" than the object.  What I said was that 
"neither contingent is more or less 'real' than the other," which means that 
subject and object are co-dependent contingencies in existence   We need an 
'otherness' to experience Value in an orderly fashion.  Otherness 
(Beingness) provides this order.

We derive our logic, relational (space/time) precepts, and predictability 
from the essential Value that is sensed pre-intellectually (just as Pirsig 
claimed for the "Quality experience").  This enables the actual experience 
of specific things and events to be objectivized or constructed, in 
accordance with the overall cosmic design, to represent our valuistic 
sensibilities.  That's where "process" comes into the picture.

So you see, Marsha, Self and Other are more than "patterns".  They infer 
substantive, tangible entities that make existence real for us.  I like to 
think of existential reality as a "reduction" of  Essence caused by the 
nothingness (gaps) in our experience.  That's what my "negation hypothesis" 
was intended to explain.

The antithesis of Essence (i.e, what IS) is Nothingness (what is NOT). 
Since it is clear that existence includes both absolutes in order to account 
for difference, I borrowed from Heidegger to posit negation as the primary 
differentiator of existence.  Unfortunately, the idea of an Absolute Source 
negating nothingness is viewed as problematic by Mark and a few others 
who've been willing to consider my ontology.  I still maintain, however, 
that the creative potential of Essence logically must be negational inasmuch 
as what is already absolute "can have no other beside it" unless that other 
is a negation.

Does this concept make any sense to you, Marsha?  Has my ontology helped you 
to realize the reality of your self as a participant in a "real world"? 
(I'll be disappointed, but not offended, if it hasn't.)

Always appreciate your interest,
Ham