Ron: > Essentialism states that finitude is attributed to value awareness. > Therefore the finite self is an illusion, even by your own hand. Ham: Finitude is not ultimate reality, to be sure. But the finite self (being-aware) is our reality, illusionary or not.
Ron: This is what you would call one of those primary ontological questions that need to be answered to complete a metaphysic by your standards. Which is it in Essentialism? is the finite self illusionary or not? Ron prev.: > Your whole case revolves on Aristotelian logic which MoQ > diverts from. This is why things are not matching up. > You may not level collectivism because it stems from this > logic, a logic that MoQ transcends. Ham: Funny, I've always thought Essentialism was more Platonic than Aristotelian. How is Aristotelian logic different than Euclidean logic? And how can you justify a philosophy on the ground that it "transcends" logic? Ron: Logic functions on particular axioms. MoQ rejects axioms. There is experience and description of experience which utilizes being without logic therefore transcending the "vat" of western subject/object metaphysics. Now you may argue that logic is the way in which we understand the world but this would be leaving the term open ended and confuse the process of axiomatic systems of truth finding with experience itself. ron prev: > Let's speak essentially, Essence is only limited by value sensibility > which creates the self-other dichotomy. But self-other is a > manifestation of the absoluteness of Essence, in fact reality is > a manifestation of Essence, which is the negate of nothingness. > Therefore your "Free agent" can not be absolutely free can it? Ham: An agent is part of a system, which means that it can't be "absolutely" anything. Freedom, like everything else in existence, is relative to the source. But within this relational system the individual is an autonomous entity. It is a unique conjunction of awareness and beingness which is the power to create and direct its own reality. Conversely, a "collective mind" is dependent on the values and authority of the majority. Ron: au·ton·o·mous (ô-tŏn'ə-məs) adj. Not controlled by others or by outside forces; independent: adjective 1. not controlled by outside forces; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state" 2. existing as an independent entity; 3. (of persons) free from external control and constraint Ron quotes Ham: " But the finite self(being-aware) is our reality, illusionary or not." How then, does finitude exist with autonomy? you seem to be flip flopping your stance in relation to your argument. What you seem to be saying is that within the realm of the collective values and authority of the majority the "free agent" may choose to be autonomous. I use the term "free agent" loosely for it seems that free agency is relational and dependant on certain criteria in your metaphysic. Ron: > I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle collective. Ham: No, it's a case of the individual calling the "vat" collective. Ron: I think we are both calling the "vat" collective, MoQ calls it SOM. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder. If you call MoQ collective you are calling Essentialism collective based on the same grounds. thanks 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/
