Hi Ham, > I was fascinated by philosophical ideas before I knew what philosophy was. > This interest took shape as an intellectual quest after taking classes in > philosophy and logic as electives in college. Existentialism and New Age > mysticism were the rage in the 50s, and I began reading Sartre and Watts > while acquainting myself with Eckhart, Aquinas, Tillich, Heidegger, James, > Russell, and Pearce, among the authors best known to the Pirsigians. The > philosophy of Essence developed sporadically, until the mid-90s, when I > realized that my ontology was a rebuttal of existentialism and named it > Essentialism. Since Desire and Value figured prominently in my ontogeny, I > began researching these topics for a website I started putting together in > 2001, when I stumbled upon Pirsig's Quality thesis. Actually, I joined the > MD the following year at the author's suggestion in response to my query > letter. If I may ask, what was the query about Quality that you had? > Yes, I'm always open to new ideas, although "something better" for me at > this juncture would have to be an ontology that makes more sense. And, thus > far, I've found nothing that tops Essentialism in that regard. If your looking for something that 'makes more sense' compared to what you already know then I'm not sure you will ever be able to appreciate or fully understand the MOQ. The MOQ is more than an ontology - it is a new, better, Metaphysical way of thinking - not some idea to compare and contrast with all other SOM ideas and Philosophies as you appear to be constantly doing.
Moreover, the fact that you've written a book and created a website on this issue means you know a fair amount indeed when it comes to Essentialism. How likely do you think it would be that you were to drop Essentialism for the clarity which the MOQ brings? > > 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. > > On the contrary, I'm clearing the objective world of precepts that have to > do with thoughts and emotions which are subjective (i.e., proprietary), > rather than existential, in nature. What do you mean? > Certainly. But "things" are only MY reality. The fact that I look for > 'better things for better living' suggests that I am part of a process > called existence, which is a stream of valuistic impressions of which I am > but a temporary locus. In the MOQ there are no 'subjective' people who don't really know anything about the world and all they can say is 'subjective' and not an accurate representation of how things really are. Good is universal. The MOQ says that whatever I call me is a convenient term for the biological, social and intellectual patterns which make up me. Because of this, the MOQ says that everyone exists and everyone knows reality. This is what is good about the MOQ. You don't have to be some genius Philosopher or Scientist or some tiny percentage of people in the world to actually 'know' reality. Everyone knows reality. The way some people view reality is simply better than others. > > 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. > > Agreed. Any philosopher who insists that existence precedes essence has > made Being his fundamental reality. Essentialism takes the opposite view: > Being is an experiential construct of essential Value. Which is primary. Essence or value? > > 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'm not a psychologist, David, but my understanding of clinical depression > would rule out philosophy as a causative factor. How we look at the world affects whether we are happy or sad. Traditionally, SOM would have us think that our 'subjective' mind is not real and therefore does not affect whether we are happy or sad. The MOQ restores the importance of philosophy to someones general wellbeing. > Human beings are not gods, > nor were we promised that life would be a rose garden. What we are granted > as sensible creatures is a full spectrum of good and bad experiences so that > we can choose those values which best fulfill our desire for meaning and > contentment. Perhaps you should heed Socrates' admonition "know theyself", > and re-examine the values you strive for. It may be that they are out of > balance. (Rationality can help you there.) Or, I could stick to a Metaphysics which is open to be replaced by something better. > > 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. > > Then you've made my point, David:. > 1. Static quality cannot be the ultimate source because it is derivative. > 2. Dynamic Quality cannot be the ultimate source because it is progessive. > Ergo: "Quality" is the wrong term for ultimate source. And you've made mine...again. This is the whole point my previous thread. Please stop confusing Dynamic Quality with some such a concept. Dynamic Quality is not a concept. Dynamic Quality is not 'progress' or 'change' or 'essense'. Dynamic Quality is not a thing at all. If you want to experience what the MOQ is, then you need to stop treating Dynamic Quality as a concept because it is not a concept. 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
