Hi Ian --
Ham said: "My criticism [of the MoQ] concerns the flawed epistemology that an aesthetic sensibility such as 'beauty', 'importance', 'quality' or 'value' can stand independently as the ultimate reality." Ian:
It can't Ham, but neither can anything else actually be an independent foundation, nothing we can name anyway - that's the point. The groundlessness takes some getting used to, so we might has well give this ineffible thing a non-misleading name, whilst we get on with the practicalities of life, a name that doesn't suggest something fixed, tangible and objectifiable.
Why can't we name it, even it is ineffable or indefinable? I have chosen the name Essence because it is the absolute and essential source of all experienced otherness. You may prefer to call it God, Creator, or the Itself. The point is not that ultimate reality is "nameless". It's that a groundless universe cannot account for existence. An ontology that postulates Value as the ground or primary source is illogical because it presupposes man's existence, if not also "value-preferring" objects. What you end up with is a philosophy with a false epistemology and no metaphysical foundation.
Thanks, Ian. --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/
