[Ham] Ron, I do not rail against "the idea of the whole being greater than its parts." In fact, whenever I've used that expression, I've stated it as "the whole is MORE than the sum of its parts", since a sum of parts is an aggregate of differences, whereas the whole is One undifferentiated absolute. Quite possibly you weren't attributing this expression to me but only using it to describe my view of the MoQ.
[Ron] My apologise Ham, I was attempting to boil down and thus pin down the "collective" conflict And try to wrap my head around just what the dispute was and the more I look at it, the more I see similar things being said from differing points of view. The big difference I see Between Essentialism and MOQ is MOQ stops at dynamic quality whereas Essentialsm goes one Step further and describes the "the ultimate value set" of undivided source with nothingness If I'm not mistaken,(which I may be) [Ham] I do think there is a "loss of individuality and free-agent status" in the MoQ epistemology, not because of a "parts-to-whole" relationship but because there is no "whole"'. That is, you don't arrive at a whole by fusing the parts. I reject the notion that a conflated whole is the ultimate or primary Reality. Just as everything in existence is relational and differentiated, that which transcends existence is not a "collective" but the undivided Source, or what Pirsig calls somewhat ambiguously Dynamic Quality (the "dynamics" being the creation of static patterns, such as "selfness"). This really has nothing to do with "collective processes of the brain", being part of a community, or the multiplicity of individuals comprising a nation. Such examples don't define the metaphysical whole of reality. Collective processes of the brain don't create proprietary awareness. A community doesn't create individuals. A society doesn't create mankind. Again, these are not a primary source; they're only a "sum of differentiated parts". Everything in experience is differentiated and relative to the observer. The appearance of existence is what I call "being-aware". I explain the epistemology as Value differentiated by organic sensibility and intellectually objectivized as beingness. Thanks for another opportunity to present my views. [Ron] Thank you for correcting me on your view, one big question for you if you do not mind my asking, Does your ontology include the concept of what is commonly referred to as the "soul" or spirit? If so, what is it's relation with Essence? 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/
