Ham,
I now understand your intrest in Micah's "nothing can be proved to exist
outside humans"
And "man is the measure" when I was contemplating this I began reading Gottlieb
Fichte
And his concept of "the self positing I" and now after reviewing Hegel, all
this collects
And begins to jell and few questions emerge, "essence" seems close to Hegels
"geist"
Essentialism's C++ logic type "negation" is similar to Hegels dialectic of
thesis, antithesis,
Synthesis or law of change. Toward ultimate "oneness" with "geist" Hegel was on
the platonic side
And mixed his philosophy with christianty, while others view it as a sort of
religeon without a god
or even pantheism While Marx took it to the materialist side, so my question to
you is:
1. where Do you stand on "essence" do you see it as geist? A mid point between
mind and spirit? And if so,
Do you see it as being more moral than material?
2. there seems to be a jump to the assumption of ultimate resolve instead of
negation bringing on
a the nihlistic "liar" paradox Both are possiblities, why ultimate resolve
or "oneness"?
Thanks Ham,
-x
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:50 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism
Hi Ron --
> Ham,
> Thank you for clarifying that for me, you must get blue in the face
> repeating yourself, I've gone through the archives to get a better
> grasp of your theory, but it seems I was close, now I must re-read
> your paper concerning this, the first go at it, I was confused by the
> terminology and their relationships but I think I have it now.
> Thanks again!
Yes, I've had to repeat myself on this question, but am always happy to oblige
when it comes to my philosophy. Also, it's a good exercise in how to present
it in different ways, depending on where the questioner is coming from. I may
have slighted you with that Taoist formulation. (I trust you received the
complete post.) Since you appear to be genuinely interested, let me give you a
précis of the ontology which is elaborated at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality .
First, it might be useful to know how I think Essentialism differs from the
MoQ. I don't assume any levels, speak in patternese, or divide reality into
dynamic and static modes. However, as you already know, I do assume a primary
source which is based on Cusa's Not-other and a Hegelian concept of Negation
which for many is the most troublesome part. (You'll find a very complete
analysis of this hypothesis in the above-referenced section.) I also discuss
"creation" in the present tense for two reasons: Time is the mode of human
experience, whereas process and change do not affect the "Creator" (Essence);
also, I view creation as a constant attribute of Essence, like negation and
value-affirmation.
Basically, Essence is uncreated, absolute, immutable, all-sensible, and
negational. Any definitive description beyond that is impossible from the
human perspective. Muitiplicity or "plenitude" arises as Difference, which is
an illusory reduction of Essence. Difference is derived from absolute Essence
by negation. I have concluded that what Essence negates is its antithetical
nothingness; however, this makes nothingness an "active agent"
in existence which seems illogical to some, and I allow that Value is also a
possible negate. It makes little difference metaphysically, since the
"division of otherness" that negation causes is perceived as Value by Awareness
which is existential nothingness. (While I refer to Awareness as the "negate"
in my thesis, there may be grounds for defining it as Value-awareness -- I'm
open to suggestions on this.) You'll note that I refer to subject and object
as mutually exlusive but co-dependent "essents"
in order to distinguish them from primary essence.
In any case, Awareness (derived from absolute sensibility) is proprietary to
the subject of the S/O dichotomy that is created by negation. I describe
existential reality as a differentiated system in which everything is
experienced relative to everything else. This includes the individuation of
Awareness into a multiplicity of "selves", each identified with a specific
organism (i.e., physical body). Since the mode of experience is framed in time
and space, existence is perceived as things and events localized in space and
occurring serially (as process in time).
Rather than ascribe Value (Quality) to the primary source, I treat it as
sensory and relate it to the S/O divide in which it functions as a
counter-principle to the Negation that creates it. Man (whom I define as
earth's value-sensible creature) is driven by Value (his estranged Essence),
but he intellectualizes it as "beingness" by constructing phenomena in
space/time that represent (embodies) the relative values he perceives.
Actually, he's looking at Essence (from which he is separated) across the
divide of nothingness, senses his loss of Essence as Value, and "invents" a
world of finite beings to compensate for this loss. Each being that he
constructs is a "secondary negation" performed by his intellect and
corresponding to the relative Value he perceives. Metaphysically, the Value he
acquires in the process of intellection "fills" or supplants the nothingness at
his core, ultimately dissolving the division and affirming
("refreshing?") this value in the Oneness of Essence.
So you see, Ron, it's a bit more involved than the Taoist formulation. I hope
this brief guide helps in comprehending my philosophy of Essence. I also hope
to come up with a "simplified" version of this thesis before I leave this world.
Okay, I'll take questions from the audience now ;-).
Thanks, and good luck,
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/
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/
