Ron -- > I fail to see the hubub, bub. > your gripe with MOQ. seems to be one of terminology.
No, it isn't the terminology, bub. It's the fundamentals (or lack of them). But since you raise the question of terminology with your own MoQ equivalents, I'll take this opportunity to correct your list as it applies to Essentialism. My comments are enclosed in brackets. [Ron]: > DQ = essent [If DQ is the primary source, the essentialist equivalent > would be ESSENCE.] > > subject/object (static) = being-aware [The relation of subjective > awareness to objective beingness is anything but "static". It emerges, > changes, grows, and assumes various identities. Definitely DYNAMIC.] > > Value = Value [Yes, but does Value = Quality, ie., the primary source? > If so, Value does not define ESSENCE.] > > Essentialism = realizing oneness through dichotomy [Realizing VALUE > from the dichotomy, with the understanding that it is man's perspective of > Essence (Oneness).] > > MOQ = realizing oneness through complex system theory Pointing out how > rationalizing through > dichotomy may leaves out aspecs of reality. [No equivalent in > Essentialism. No need for complex system theory, no "aspects" of finite > reality are essential except for the value it represents.] [Ron continues]: > which is what this argument is about. You seem to be concerned with > focus on source. Pirsig focuses on the phenomenal. I focus on the source because the phenomenal is common knowledge. We beat it to death. So does Science. Philosophy gives us a means of getting beyond the "otherness" of differentiated reality. Why not avail ourselves of this perspective? > Essentialism is cool but it doesent help me to understand complex systems > which is what reality is composed of. Since we construct our reality from value, reality can be as complex as the intellect makes it. Making reality complex would seem to be the goal of the quantum physicists. If you think reality is "composed of complex systems," you'd better check your MoQ Manual. Pirsig says it's composed of Quality, "...the primary empirical reality". > Essentialism is great but how does it define source any better than > Dynamic Quality? Any way I turn it I still have a hard time > understanding how Essentialism furthers any of these concepts > short of re-defining them. Then your knowledge of Essentialism is superficial at best. You folks are still debating about whether DQ is patterned or unpatterned, whether it's energy or modality, whether it emerges from SQ or vice-versa, or whether it may be simply a euphemism for goodness. Obviously, it hasn't been defined very well, and its author refuses to define it. In my philosophy, Essence is defined as "The ultimate, necessary, unconditional, negational Source and/or 'whatness' of reality." I submit that this is a fairly complete definition for something whose nature is indescribable. > If you could in some way basically list the advantages of Essentialism > over MOQ then I think you'd win more of us. I could supply a list, but it would raise more questions than answers. Actually I've been asked to do this before, and it hasn't satisfied the questionner. In plain words, Essentialism is founded on a primary, uncreated source whose potentiality is absolute. All knowledge, and all awareness, is proprietary to the individual. Since meaning and purpose is to be found in the relation of the proprietary self to the absolute source, life has no meaning to the individual who does not acknowledge the source. Because he is estranged from Essence, man is an autonomous creature whose free choices are based on his value-sensibility rather than on biological instinct. This makes him the free agent and choicemaker of his world. Experience is "being aware of Value", which is to say, man makes Value aware as Being. Being-aware is a dichotomy whose contingencies are inextricably bound together by Value. By realizing the Value of our estranged Essence, we incrementally "dissolve" the dichotomy and approach the essential Oneness from which we are all separated at birth. This brief synopsis is not going to win any "converts" to Essentialism. However, it does set forth those fundamental concepts which are missing from the MoQ; namely, a primary source (creator), the dichotomy of actualized existence (rejected by Pirsig as "dualism"), the significance of the individual (as opposed to the "collective"), value as man's relational link to Essence (rather than an esthetic source of patterns and levels), and man's role in the universe (as compared to simply recognizing that "some things are better than others"). For more elaboration on these concepts, you'll have to read my webpage thesis at www.essentialism.net , at least until my book comes out. Thanks for your questions and list of equivalent terms. Regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
