From: PhaedrusWolf@aol.com
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 00:01:04 GMT
In a message dated 12/2/04 2:37:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
hampday@earthlink.net writes:
May I suggest that you review my thesis on Essence --
www.essentialism.net -- and then come back with your comments or questions.
Although I developed my Philosophy of Essence independently, you'll see that
I've made extensive use of Pirsig's 1995 paper on "Subjects, Objects, Data
and Values", which is as close to a metaphysical thesis as you'll find by
this author.
Hi Ham,
I haven't gotten quite as far as you mentioned with SODV, but for a starter,
it seems to me that what you are offering has some convinient factualizing
that doesn't truly lend itself to unguestioned fact.
Maybe you can bring this snippet down to fifth grade terms that I could
understand;
Since the division of infinity by nothingness does not reduce the quotient
value, (what are you valuing from nothing to infinity) and infinity is
non-extendable, the presence of a negated otherness in no way diminishes or alters
the Absolute Source. (and the absolute source is?) "Otherness" is Essence
Value whose negated sensibility leaves a void as the "seed" of differentiation.
(It came from nothing, and became something?) This seminal void
[nothingness] is the causative factor of a polarized system in which sensibility
confronts its denied value as an otherness. (Would the denied value of nothingness
not be somethingness?) It could be said that Essence constantly "denies that
otherness is anything but itself" by negating or relinquishing an autonomous
sensibility within otherness to "challenge" it. (and if we accept that it
can only be if we experience it, how can it be if it is not what we experience?
The essence would be the opposite of what we experience?) The challenging
"essent"—sensibility-of-value—is implanted in the negate as the "not-other"
contingent of this dichotomy. (How sinsibility of value be challeniging?)
Like its object [other], not-other is also a value-depleted essent that is
separated from the Source by nothingness (empty space and time). (Where did this
object [other] come from to begin with? nothingness? The "Source" is of
course uncreated Essence which, to paraphrase Eckhart, represents "absolute
fullness of value", (Quality) and the Creation that we are chronicling here is the
negational mode of Absolute Essence. (Nothing needs to be negated to come
from Quality) The negate devolving from this self-abnegation of Essence cannot
be incidental; as a manifestation of the Absolute Source, it must serve some
essential purpose. One can only presume that this other/not-other negate is
the means by which Essence acquires an extrinsic perspective of its own
value. (If it negates value, how does it become value?)
'Nothingness' comes from a denial of 'Self', yes, but this does not include
the other self, or 'Otherness' as a negation of this 'Nothingness'. Quality is
the nothingness, oneness, source or absolute. When you speak in terms of
'Better than' as a definition, it is the definition of Quality event, or Quality
experience. It goes beyond experience as Quality is there to be experienced,
not that the experience creates Quality, but our perception can build upon
the Quality that already exists. Quality is the 'Value' you speak of.
This reply will most likely will not be posted till sometime tonight or
tomorrow as AOL doesn't seem to work well with this forum host. As I see there
have already been a number of replies since I wrote this, I would imagine you
already have your plate full of handling them.
Chin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 00:05:15 GMT