On 1/25/12, Ham Priday <hampday1@veri...> wrote:
> Hi Mark --
>> Hi Ham,
>> The first cut in MoQ is the DQ sq cut as far as I can remember
>> from the beginings of this thread. This is a structural approach,
>> which provides metaphysical handles with which to present
>> Quality. Your first cut is a mechanistic approach, and used in a
>> different way. You are referring to the knife and not the result.
>> A similar first cut in Essentialism would be Essence and Self.
>> Yes, I know, Self is negated Essence. Yet the Self can bring
>> Essence to view. So, it can be considered a first cut from a
>> structural point of view.
> Mark, I really see little difference between a "structured" and a
> "mechanistic" approach to metaphysics. The "result" of a cut is a division
> or separation of the entity to which the cut is applied. In ontology we are
> talking about cutting an undifferentiated Source to produce Existence, and
> the cause of the cut is as significant as the result. (Even more so, since
> we can define the result but not its source.)
The difference is as follows: In MoQ we have two handles that we
create to present MoQ, DQ and sq. In a way, this is no different from
the material spiritual devide (othes may gape aghast at this), but it
is more intuitive. As Essentialism claims, the Self is a body which
stands alone. Thus this is your cut. The process you refer to, is a
divisiveness of cutting, not the cut results itself.
Every Ontology is different, in your case you start with an
undifferentiated source which is negated. In MoQ, I start with the
negation as primary (please note that I say "I", I am not the new
interpreter for Pirsig :0). My upcoming post to you titled "MoQ for
the Essentialist" may explain this better than I have in the many
posts of the past (of course that is also my opinion). You state that
the Source is undefined, as it should be. However, I would define the
way you present the Source as "the potential for all that arises".
Perhaps you can correct me here.
> Yes, if DQ/sq is the model we need to follow, Essence/selfness would be a
> logical paradigm. It would be inaccurate, however, because the cut of Self
> from Essence does not reduce or diminish the source in the way that cutting
> out a slice reduces the pie. The Source does not give up its essence in
> creation, and does not admit to otherness; what Essence negates is what it
> is not. So that what we call existence is not really Essence but the
> appearance of otherness objectivized from Value. (To avoid confusion, I use
> Sartre's term "essent" to designate objective otherness.)
Ham, you don't need to follow anything, I can interpret your Ontology
in MoQ terms. The cut in MoQ is to give us the ability to further
discussion and understanding (agreement) of Quality. It does not
diminish, but adds to the interpretation. We claim that cutting the
ocean up into little water molecules adds to our "understanding". We
could also say that such a cut diminishes our intuitive understanding
of water, but this is not part of the intellect. So, MoQ proceeds
through standard structural logics of the day. If we were in another
day and age, it would be presented differently, as indeed it has been.
I understand what you mean by Essence. I do understand that Essence
is revealed through a process which you term negation. I do
understand that it is the process of such that is termed existence.
What I am putting as primary is your process of objectification
itself. It is this process which creates self and other (as you will
see). If you want to call this nothingness it is fine with me, but it
must be an active verb, right? It must be a process not an object,
> Again, as I reminded Joe, metaphysics does not lend itself to logical
> syllogisms and quantitative analysis. I'm not sure about Pirsig's
> indefinable DQ, but the Absolute Source of Essentialism is non-relational
> and immutable. In either case, the first cut is Difference and, to my way
> of thinking, the "knife" that makes that cut is nothingness.
The indefinability of DQ would be akin to your indefinability of
Essence. It simply means that DQ cannot be revealed through
definition. In fact, definition only hides it more. However, this
does not mean that we cannot discuss it relationally which is what we
do by juxtaposing it with sq. However, if we define DQ as everything
that is not sq, all we are doing is creating another sq which is not
> Incidentally, I see what you mean about Joe's unconventional concept of
Yes, but I think I understand what he is saying (sometimes). (Thanks, Joe).