From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Apr 19 2005 - 18:28:03 BST
Hi Ian --
> It's just a matter of linguistics - I think the Pirsigian "quality" we
> are talking about is just another name for the primary
> "pre-intellectual" experience you are also talking about.
> The mystery is about the scale of "pre" - how far back can it be pushed.
Thanks for your gesture of understanding.
As much as I would like to, for the sake of general conciliation, I can't
accept your conclusion that "it's just a matter of linguistics". And it's
not a simply disagreement about what is and is not "empirical". It's a
matter that has to do with the refusual to accept a primary source.
What is "pre-intellectual" to experience -- and Quality and Value -- is the
Absolute Essence which transcends these existential derivatives but cannot
logically be identified with them. Any attempt to do so takes the form of a
word game that aims at categorizing everything while circumventing the
metaphysical source. My contention is that Essence is immutable.
Even DMB is unable to deny the logic of a primary cause:
> I can almost sympathize and respect the idea of intelligent design.
> Almost, but not quite. I think that its really just creationism in a
tuxedo.
That cute phrase "creationism in a tuxedo", incidentally, was invented by
one of the major ID detractors on the Council for Science Education, and it
was quoted on my Values page on this topic several weeks ago. So, at least
DMB may be visiting my website!
Since you've given me the opportunity, and FWIW, I've added the following
paragraph to my thesis which I'm hoping will further codify my theory of
Essence.
"The cardinal principle of Essentialism is that Absolute Essence is
immutable; that is, there is a 'clean break' between the unity of Essence
and the differentiated world of existence. The significance of this
principle is that the 'specificity' of existential sensibilia, including
qualitative attributes like Value, Goodness and Beauty, as well as the
'dynamic' or functional constructs by which created entities are
objectivized-such as Nothingness, Beingness, Difference, Identity,
Rationality, Numerality, Materiality, Consciousness, Humanity, Morality,
Evolution, and Process-are not identifiable with the uncreated source. All
such intellectualized precepts are specific to finite experience and,
therefore, not directly transferable to Absolute Essence. Thus, any
philosophy that is founded on an existential attribute or property as
opposed to a primary, undifferentiated source cannot logically claim
metaphysical transcendency."
I appreciate your efforts to "harmonize" my differences with the MoQ, Ian,
but apparently we see things differently.
Best regards,
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 : Tue Apr 19 2005 - 18:45:33 BST