>> Mark, I really see little difference between a "structured"
>> and a "mechanistic" approach to metaphysics. . . .
> 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 divide (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). . . .
I know (because Joe told me) that Essence is non-logical; but even so,
negation without something to negate it from is a logical absurdity. Thus,
negation can be "primary" only to process and relations. I trust we
understand each other on that ontological premise. As a minor point, I
would not define the self as a "body", since even the body with which the
self identifies is a physical object (i.e., "otherness").
> 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.
I would have preferred "Essentialism for the MoQer" as a title, but beggars
can't by choosers, and I'm definitely begging the Essence question in this
Although Essence itself is undefinable, we can attribute "potentiality" to
it without violating logic. Yes, Essence is the source of all potency or
power. As I state in my online thesis: "Nothingness is the cosmic
differentiator that reduces potentiality to actuality. Whatever has the
potential to exist is not actualized by its own power, but rather by the
'not-other' whose negation makes the potential to exist necessary."
>> Yes, if DQ/sq is the model we need to follow, Essence/selfness
>> would be a logical paradigm. ...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.
> 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,
Not an "object"?, yes. A "process"?, no. Nothingness is neither a thing
nor an action. Empirically it is empty space. Metaphysically there is no
"process" except as perceived in the space/time mode of experience. Only in
experience does creation appear as an evolving relational order.
Nothingness is the differentiating ground of finite being (the "essent"
perceived), not an ontological process. Otherwise your understanding is
right on target. (Or should I say "on the Mark" ;-).
> 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
> DQ. Comprende?
Si signor. As long as "sq" and its patterns are treated as "existence" and
its relations, I have no problem with this paradigm. I'll be most
interested in how you explain the dynamics of Value (Quality), as you appear
to have avoided it so far in our discussions.
When may I expect to receive this epistle, Mark? It's been a mighty long