[Arlkrime]: > Our mind is still trying to fathom how we "intuit" our cosmic > purpose. But yet all experience is intellectual. > But yet intellect "gets in the way" of this intuition. > But yet there is no such thing as pre-intellectual experience.
[DM]: >Yep, that's the special level of confusion only Ham seems > to reach, I think we have uncovered his cosmic purpose! You two (three?) have not been paying attention. Your confusion stems from a misinterpretation of my terms. On 4/4 I explained to Ron that I acknowledge proprietary awareness in a pure sense as Sensibility, not "experience" which is intellectually differentiated. Because everything in existence is divided by nothingness, including the subject, sensibility takes a binary form: Value/sensibility. I submit that value-sensibility is the essence of man's existence. Hence, there is nothing inconsistent about my statement. Moreover, since the attributes of existence are intellectualized "products" of value-sensibility, experience does not reveal cosmic purpose. This can only be conceived intuitively--by the introspective development of a logically plausible ontology that takes into account the fact that experiential truth is relative and knowledge is only an intellectual paradigm. Essentialism is such a theory. It posits man as the locus of his universe and vindicates the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth as consistent with the principle of Individual Freedom. Unlike the MoQ, Essentialism can acknowledge existence as a subject/object reality because it is founded on an undifferentiated source. Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to clarify my position. --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/
