> Hi Ron -- > I'm very interested in completely comprehending Essentialism.
So am I, Ron. Essentialism as a metaphysical ontology is a philosophy I originated, and even I am at a loss to explain or describe its fundamental Essence. I suppose the word "dialectical" is well-suited to metaphysical theory. Dialectic means discourse, and Aristotle is said to have attributed it to Zeno of Elea as "the art of debate". Since metaphysical theory doesn't lend itself to empirical proof, any such reality concept is a subject for logical discussion. Marxism and Existentialism were founded on the philosophy of Dialectical Materialism, and, in large part, so were Naturalism and Scientific Objectivism. > If you would, would you compare and contrast the concept > Of dialectical monism with essentialism for me? Dialectical monism, for which you have supplied descriptive quotations, can take several forms. . It can be Pantheism, the doctrine that reality comprises a single being of which all things are modes, moments, or appearances. It can be the monism of Wolff, Parmenides and Spinoza, who believed that there is but one fundamental reality, and that the perception of an object and its reality are unified in relation to knowledge. Or it can be the philosophy of Nihilism, which claims belief in nothing beyond the reality of experience itself. Theoretically, Solipsism is pure monism, but I'm not aware of any philosophy that is founded on solipsism. I regard such categorization as "philosophology", to borrow a term from Pirsig, and generally avoid them, preferring that the reader (or correspondent) understand the uniqueness of what I'm postulating before trying to fit it into some pre-existing school or philosopher's genre. If you must have a comparison, it forces me to edit or "correct" your paragraphs on monism so as to be consistent with Essentialism. This is not the best way to approach a new philosophy, and I would much prefer that you read my book, or review my thesis at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm . However, since you asked, I'll comment on the quoted statements. > Dialectical monism is an ontological position which holds that reality > is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by > asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic > terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of > complementary polarities which, while opposed in the realm of > experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense. This statement, so far is it goes, would convince me that I'm a dialectical monist. > Principles > To establish its premises, dialectical monism posits a Universal > Dialectic, which is seen as the fundamental principle of existence. The > concept is similar to that of the Taiji or 'Supreme Ultimate' in Taoism. > Accordingly, advocates assert that Taoism as well as some forms of > Buddhism (most notably Zen or Chan) are based on an approach consistent > with (or identical to) dialectical monism. My "Universal Dialectic" is Essence, the fundamental principle of Reality. (By contrast, Pirsig's "Universal Dialectic" is Quality, the fundamental principle of Existence.) The term "Supreme Ultimate" is a redundancy unknown to me, other than as the Tao itself. But Taoism, as well as most Eastern mystical religions, have no logical foundation and are not open to dialectical analysis or debate. > Ideas relating to progress or "teleological evolution" are important > concepts in some interpretations of dialectical monism. Although > historically this element has not always been present, it is important > to note that this teleological tendency can significantly differ from > other variants of teleology if dialectical monism is linked to > materialism, because such an interpretation is a naturalistic > progression rather than a result of design or consciousness. However, > non-materialistic philosophies exist which also are dialectical monisms, > such as Actual Idealism or kinds of solipsism. Here's where the "Principles" quoted differ from my philosophy. Teleology and entelechy refer to "purpose" and "ends", respectively, and my ontology defines Value realization by a free agent as the differentiated "actuality" that perfects Essence which is the undivided source. The appearance of process (evolution and change in space/time) is the reduced mode of Sensibility, human awareness, or what RMP calls S/O experience. Ron, this comparative analysis leaves much to be desired. I would urge you to read my online thesis to gain a better understanding of Essentialism, and then let me try to address specific questions. I appreciate your interest, and welcome any comments you may wish to make off line. Essentially yours, 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/
