[MD] The first cut.

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe and all --


> You use a word "essence" which is not logical.  No logic or reality
> can follow "essence".  It is a stand alone word defining to be (esse)
> and being (ens) different parts of speech yes/no and the beat goes on!
>
> In a DQ/SQ format for metaphysics you need a word which looks
> three ways "existence": EX (out of) Iste (that) ens (being) so that the
> description of an origin for reality accepts modifiers: active, passive,
> or neutral.

Considering that Essence has designated my primary source for two decades, I 
found your etymology very interesting.  You are correct that "essence" is a 
non-logical term, a fact that works to my advantage, since (like Pirsig's 
DQ) the Absolute Source is undefinable, yet all-encompassing.  Essence is a 
"stand-alone word" to designate that state of Beingness which alone is 
self-sufficient and independent of all otherness.

My etymology for Existence is somewhat simpler than yours, however.  I 
interpret EX (out of) Istence (that being) to mean an egress or exclusion 
from Beingness itself.  This can only occur as a "negation" of Essence.  In 
my ontology it is nothingness that accounts for the differentiation of 
existence, making its appearance definable not only as "active, passive, or 
neutral" but as "infinite or finite","ordered or chaotic", as well as "good. 
bad, or indifferent" relative to the value-sensible agent.

> Once those three elements are embodied in metaphysics like
> "existence", then a metaphysical discussion can define reality
> more precisely, and logic is served.  Evolution, embodying
> each of the forces, cannot manifest only as active or passive
> "essence"!

Joe, you speak of "three elements"; yet your Existence etymology includes 
only two --"out of" and "being" -- unless the pronoun "that" is considered 
an element.  I see no need for a trinity here, nor do I understand why a 
metaphysical ontology must accommodate Evolution which is a dimensional 
(space/time) process.

Also, you seem to be suggesting that metaphysics developed to serve the 
purpose of logic and analysis, much as science serves the purpose of 
quantification and praxis.  I disagree.  We have already conceded (I think) 
that ultimate reality transcends logical analysis and mathematical 
quantification.  Therefore, Essence, DQ, God, or whatever you want to call 
it, cannot be contained in or defined by the laws of a relational system.

By making these demands, aren't you restricting the conceptual value of 
metaphysics?

Respectfully,
Ham


> On 1/24/12 10:55 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The capacity to define is what I call Sensibility; and because it 
>> embraces
>> empirical, emotional, and intellectual values, I refer to it as
>> "value-sensibility" and consider it the essence of man's selfness.  So 
>> that,
>> instead of describing Value (i.e., DQ) as something indefinable that we
>> "latch onto" as "patterns and levels", I explain experience as the
>> objectivization of Value by the sensible "agent" or self.
>>
>> Thus, if Selfness=Individuated Sensibility, the objects of experience
>> (finitude) represent "otherness", or what the sensible agent is _not_. 
>> This
>> idea has its parallel in Cusa's theorem that the First Principle (i.e., 
>> God)
>> is Not-Other.  It offers an epistemology that simplifies conscious 
>> awareness
>> by avoiding the analytical problems that invariably arise when we try to
>> express subjects and objects as a metaphysical construct of 
>> undifferentiated
>> Quality.
>>
>> I hope this analysis shares some of your thinking, or at least points in 
>> a
>> similar direction, Joe.  If so, perhaps we can once again have a 
>> productive
>> dialogue.