Greetings, Margaret --
I've not had the pleasure of talking with you, but have read your posts with
interest.
> I don't have the problems with identity some of you have,
because I don't know any of you. I haven't attached any
specific characteristics to any of you - so you could all be
one and the same and it wouldn't matter to me.
My full name is Hamilton Priday. I reside in Pennsylvania, have probably
lived too long, and am one of those evil conservatives who believe that
survival in this life is the primary responsibility of the individual, not
the state. The "identity problems" have arisen from the fact that at least
two participants insist on using a pseudonym instead of their real names.
Heather, for example, is the wife of a young man who calls himself Sartori
Adirondack (SA, for short), and posts in his wife's name. Another gentleman
named Case has, for reasons known only to himself, recently taken the alias
Krimel. Horse is apparently the real name of the MD administrator. Other
than those, and recent interest in "virtual reality" avatars, I'm not aware
of any other identity problems.
I just read the text of what someone is trying to say without
the labels. I think it's more helpful in fact when people leave
out that part of the exchange - the part where they accuse
and label each other. What's wrong with simply exchanging
information and thoughts? - not labels and judgments?
I agree with your approach to this forum, and tend to do the same.
Unfortunately, there are a few posters who get their kicks from creative
insults, especially when an opponent expresses something regarded as
heretical to the MoQ. (I happen to be among the victims.)
Ham, in short paragraph with a concrete example,
could you please (if you don't mind) explain what your
perspective is about Essentialism. The concrete examples
really help me understand better. As I'm sure you all
grasp - I'm not completely fluid with the abstract
philosophical language - but trying to learn.
Welcome to the club! I'm not sure I can provide "concrete examples", but
will state my belief system in simple terms.
First of all, for something to be, it must be made aware. That puts
awareness at the focal center of everything that exists. It also suggests
that experience actively "creates" our reality, rather than passively
"receiving" it.
Second, nothing comes from nothing. The fact that the universe exists means
that it is the effect or result of some greater power. Since
cause-and-effect explanations lead to an infinity of prior causes, I
maintain that the ultimate source (Essence) is uncreated, undivided, and
unconditional.
Thirdly, contrary to Pirsig's metaphysics, Quality is a value perceived by a
cognizant observer. If a work of art, a piece of music, or the universe
were to exist without being realized, how could its value or quality be
discerned? Parmenides said "Man is the measure of all things". And he was
right.
I think that's sufficient for a start. If you still need concrete examples,
I'll try to come up with some.
Good to talk with you, Margaret.
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/
