From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sat Dec 11 2004 - 19:15:31 GMT
Platt --
> Maybe you and I attach different meanings to "existence." For you it seems
> to mean the material world known by man. To me it means not only the
> material world known by man, but also everything else both known and
> unknown.
We do, indeed, attach different meanings to existence, and I guess Pirsig
does too.
The problem I have with this synonymity is that "existence" is commonly
understood as "beingness" which connotes an "existent" in a space/time
continuum. That makes existence subject to all the conditions of created
entities, including causality. While it is theoretically possible that
"beingness" is infinite, I think it is not logically defensible as
"absolute". It is for these reasons that I separate Essence out of the
physical world and posit it as the Absolute Source rather than an
all-encompassing Being (i.e., pantheism). Note that this concept is not
necessarily a rejection of theism, but being is not the ground of Essence.
In my philosophy, Essence transcends material existence and all the
conditions commonly attached to it, including the need for 'creatio ex
nihilo'.
> For me, existence includes Essence, Being, and everything that someone may
> claim comes before or after existence because they all exist. I think in
> your philosophy you would be hard pressed to claim that Essence doesn't
> exist.
No matter how "infinitely extended" or "all-inclusive" may be our notion of
physical existence, it does not rise to the level of absoluteness. And, as
you know, I am an absolutist. So, I thought, were you. That's why I felt
that Essentialism would appeal to you.
> > If you don't believe in an absolute source and regard material existence
as
> > the only reality, it follows that man and his intellect and his values
are
> > all evolutionary products of the material world.
>
> You see, I don't qualify existence by restricting it to "material"
> existence. That's where we part company.
I think you and your empiricist colleagues are finding it very difficult to
theorize intellect, values, and morality from a reality grounded in
beingness -- no matter how you parse the MoQ levels. You will end up, as
the existentialists did, by emulating Heidegger's 'dasein' ontology and
conclude that all of these human sensibilities are no more than attributes
of an evolving material universe -- a 'singularity' without purpose or
meaning.
> Quality=Existence=Awareness=Experience=Reality=Morality=Value=
> Essence. Quality is what is right in front of your nose, all the time.
>
> Quality is anything anything experiences that's better than something
> else. Quality isn't limited to man.
But man is the only creature who can recognize it.
> Well, maybe in the sense that the difference between us becomes ever more
> clear. My position is simple: the verb "to be" includes the one, the many
> and the none.
Yes, this last exchange has been quite edifying. I can now clearly
understand where you're coming from.
But it is still my hope, even if you must take it 'on faith', that you'll
eventually come to see that Being is not the end-all of Reality. (We can
put off the divorce until I'm certain that you are incapable of this
insight.)
Have a joyous Christmas!
Essentially yours,
Ham
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 : Sat Dec 11 2004 - 19:17:09 GMT