Hi Ham, As always it is fun to knock heads with you and I learn a little of Essentialism each time. At least you provide good reasons why you disagree, and don't just resort to "piss off".
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>Ham: > You disappoint me with an apologist defense that I would have expected of > Ant, Arlo, or DMB. The MoQ was advanced as a philosophy, Mark; and a > philosophy that evades "Truths" with ambiguous references instead of > explaining "how things are" is unlikely to outlive the critics. Hmmm... So you see this as apologist? I am not sure what I am apologizing for. Yes, MoQ is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which puts quality above truth. If you are saying that a philosophy cannot work that way, then welcome to MoQ. It is not your traditional philosophy, but why should it be. How far have we got with your traditional philosophy. MoQ does explain how things are, that is why it has the word metaphysics in it. I could easily say that "negation" is an ambiguous reference. I am still waiting (offline) for you to explain such negation to me in more detail. So far it is just a word that means "cast out from" like banishment from the garden of Eden. Give me something more to go on there. > > It isn't true that I accept nothing of MoQ. I accept the concept of Value > (Quality) as fundamental to man's reality. But Value is not self-sufficient > or independent of man, and does not account for our existence. If being > "one-sided" means that I am biased toward individual valuism, I plead no > contest. It's what makes the philosophy of Essence unique and meaningful. Value is not a cause as in cause-effect. Why must we consider Where in order to find meaning? It is here and it is now. Everything else is projection. This need for a "father" is perhaps where you are confused in terms of MoQ. We do not create value when we see something. Value is what we see. This is known as the "world of appearances" or Maya. If you think that your metaphysics is more advanced than, say, the Upanishad metaphysics, well then think again. Your metaphysics is classically Western. It requires a creator. This by chance is uncreated itself. Why can't Value be uncreated as well? Why cannot the universe be uncreated? Why do you play favorites? Perhaps if you drop the need for a creator and focus instead of what IS, you will arrive at a Quality Outlook. That you have sidelined complete biology as mechanical still stupefies me. Have you really thought about this in detail? Brush up on your basic biology and realize that we are basic biology. How is our choice of a meal different from a lion's choice of a meal? In terms of fundamentality. Can you name me one thing that does not have a quality associated with it. All that we know is the quality of other things and of ourselves. As soon as you see or hear something, it has quality associated with it. In fact it is all quality. You cannot point to some fundamental substance behind that quality. This is because Man measures all things. Any measurement is a quality attribution. When you see a rose, all you see is the rose's qualities. Whether or not you ascribe value to that rose is up to you. But this does not mean that the rose is without value, it just means that you do not see it. Education of certain things trains one how to see value. What was once a bunch of noise, is now an opera. > > If everything were exceptional, relative value would be meaningless. And > relative value is all that we can experience. Man is exceptional by any > measure you can come up with -- rationally, historically, cognitively, > morally, cuoturally, esthetically, innovationally, productively, > emotionally, and spiritually. This gives him the freedom and autonomy to > rule the world, ponder its mysteries, and choose the future course of > civilization. Well, Ham, let me ask you this. Is everything exceptional in Absolute Essence? Perhaps we are currently living in your Absolute Essence. And why not. What reasons do you have to believe that this is not Absolute Essence right now? Yes, Man is exceptional as far as man is concerned. Do you think a bee cares how exceptional man thinks he is? As far as a bee is concerned, we are just part of a mechanical universe that such bee has to deal with. Exceptionality is simply a point of view. At least man has the ability to extrapolate to a more universal point of view. Man has the ability to see value in everything. Man has the ability to raise the world to the same importance he gives himself. Don't you think the form of elevation would create a certain degree of harmony? How is man's pondering any different (fundamentally) from a hummingbirds pondering of a flower? Yes, it is more complex, but the same basic set of instructions is going on in the head. Our heads just tend to be more redundant in their connections which leave room for lots of circular connections. Usually these circular connections get us in trouble. They can be the cause for much suffering. Why does man commit suicide if he is so exceptional? Or are only some men exceptional? Man is so exceptional that he creates massive armies and kills other men for no good reason except some pondering of ideologies. Man's brain has way too much time on its hands, and it devotes this energy to many negative things. This brain is in need of so much stimulation, that man becomes a frenzied beast and dies of heart attacks, for no good reason. This brain is out of control and does not know what to do with itself. > > Like you, I am very much a participant of this world. I do not consider > empirical existence the only realty, however. The "rules" of nature are not > mine but are embued in the Master Design which we sense valuistically. > Value, sensibility, being, and the design are all derived from the uncreated > Source. Real arrogance is to dismiss this truth and pretend that we are > here by some accident of nature and must yield to the vicissitudes of fate > or, what is even worse, an indefinable force that moves us indefinably > toward an indefinable betterness. We are not here by some accident in nature, unless you consider everything we do to be an accident. What we do is no different from what everything else does. Free will is not just a human thing. That would just not make sense. A lioness is free to figure out the best strategy to jump a gazzelle. She gets better with this through education. A possible difference between Quality and Essentialism is that in the latter one is always returning to the source. In the former one is the source. We are the big bang. It is one continual unfolding event where we all play our part. Every move you make (I'll be watching you) provides a new direction to everything. Of course, everything else is doing the same thing. Betterness is, of course a valuation. Perhaps it is overly optimistic to you, since nothing changes according to Essentialism. Haven't things changed in your lifetime. Why is all this new negation coming from Essence, as represented by the new others we negate? If it is a Master Design, is it not conceivable to consider this Master Design as one which has direction? If it has direction why not be positive? Your choice of course, whatever gives you the most value. > >> I like the word Essence. Quality is Essence. It just has >> a higher descriptive quality than simply saying Essence. >> But, what's in a word anyway. Why don't you just call it >> Quality if it is all the same to you? It would still be your >> Essence. Trust me. > > > What's in a word, indeed? A primary source is an essential premise for > ultimate reality. Essentiality defines the non-descriptive nature of > reality. Plus, it identifies that which precedes all created entities. > Quality does not meet any of these criteria. So why not call it Essence? > You can't get any more fundamental than that. Trust me. Yes, Quality meets all those criteria. All I was suggesting that you add a little pizzazz to your Essence. > All the best, Mark > > 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 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
