Hi Ham, I have renamed the discussion as it appears to me that any discussion about the MOQ with you will inevitably lead to Essentialism.
That being the case I'd like to ask - How much time did you spend trying to understand the MOQ before you rested that understanding on Essentialism, Or have you encountered the MOQ after your ideas about Essentialism were formed? Also, are you open to something better, if it exists, than Essentialism? > Societies are collections of individuals which can be classifed as animal > entities. Ideas are not entities (existents); they are "mind patterns" which > don't exist in the objective sense. Saying that individuals are animal entities and also that ideas don't exist in the objective sense sounds to me like your linking everything back to the objective word. In the MOQ this is unnecessary. Ideas like societies are subjective and do exist. Subjective things are more real than the objects they sometimes describe. > My existentially wanting something better does not alter fundamental Reality. > You assume that Quality is forever bettering itself, which implies that it > never achieves the 'summum bonum' it seeks. Or it achieves it often? I like better things. Don't you? > That means Quality is always of a lower grade than it is purported to be -- > hardly an ideal situation for the fundamental Source, wouldn't you agree? There is only one quality which can be graded. That is called static quality. Dynamic Quality cannot be graded because it isn't any thing at all. > Since the Reality I have posited is not existential but Essential, it is not > subject to the evolutionary changes of finitude. That sounds "rigid" and > "depressing" to you, because you are not the Essential Source but an > experiential entity looking at it from the outside. Existentialism is a result of the depressing SOM mindset that everything is ultimately an object. The MOQ refutes this and says that value is ultimate and not objects. Moreover, if I understand Essentialism correctly I will always be an 'experiential entity' so by your own reasoning I will always be depressed. As I have said, it is depressing because it is very closed and not open to something better. > I can define Essence as "the absolute uncreated source of all that is." Why > can't you define Quality? I can. Saying that quality can be both defined and undefined is a definition of Quality. > I think whatever needs "to be replaced by something better" is not good > enough to be the Absolute Source. Apart from a certain irony to the above sentence - in the MOQ anything which needs to be replaced by something better is static quality and not the ultimate source. 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/md/archives.html
