[MD] Descriptions of Quality

[Ham Priday]

Joe and All --

Joe said:


> I realize you like the word "Essence".  For me it is a
> meaningless word!  I do not know how a meaningless
> word can be an ultimate object in terms of a subject.
> I thought the word "creator" preempted all source things.

Words are neither objects nor subjects but, rather, names for things or 
their characteristics.  A word can have any meaning we give it.  Are you 
going to ignore my philosophy of Essence because you don't like the word?

Here's why Essence seemed most fitting and appropriate for me. ...

1. The dictionary definition is "fundamental nature", which is ultimately 
what reality must be.

2. A primary source is absolutely "essential" for creation in order to avoid 
the 'something from nothing' paradox.

3. Essence as a fundamental principle implies no single characteristic or 
attribute, which must be logically true of an absolute source.

4. Alternative terms, such as God, Supreme Being, and Creator all carry the 
baggage of religious dogma along with the anthropomorphic connotations.

I would add that "Quality" as redefined by RMP corrupts the common aesthetic 
attribution of the word by inferring that a proprietary human appraisal can 
have an independent existence of its own.  Choosing a name is an author's 
license, of course, but such ambiguity in philosophy leads to confusion and 
misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts, as is repeatedly demonstrated 
in this forum.

I happen to prefer the word "Value", which Pirsig equates with Quality,
chiefly because it is also a verb.  This allows us to express a statement 
such as, "Chocolate is good for John because he values it."  But neither 
Value nor Quality connotes Reality,  Nor can a subjective assessment serve 
as the progenitor or Creator of the universe.

If you don't like the word "Essence", then by all means come up with your 
own name for ultimate reality.  But don't trash the ontology of Essentialism 
simply because Essence seems "meaningless" to you.

--Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 7/9/12 10:01 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Essence is our "metaphysical Source" and the ultimate object
>> of the desire and longing which is our relational bond to it.
>> As existents, we are estranged from the beingness of this
>> Source, sensible only of its Value (to us) as differentiated
>> by our experience.