[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Scott Roberts]

Ham,

Ham said:
My concept of Essence is that of an absolute 'Sensibility' with the
potential to deny or negate its Self (i.e., identity) infinitely and
infinitesimally to actualize conditional awareness (the negate) which
becomes the subject of a differentiated otherness (essent).  Essence is the
primary source of actualized beingness and nothingness which define
space/time existence.  As such, Essence is ultimate reality.  It is also
'sensible', 'immutable', and 'unconditional'.  However, because it is
necessary in metaphysical dialectics to name this referent, 'Essence' seemed
the most logical term.

Scott:
Ok. Then your Essence corresponds to Wolff's Nirvana (pure awareness, like 
your "absolute 'Sensibility'"), except that Nirvana is not the source of its 
opposite, which Wolff calls the Universe (the totality of possible objects). 
Instead, Wolff puts Consciousness-without-an-object as "containing" both 
Nirvana and Universe, which exist as mutual opposites.

Scott said:
> I said "an idea...before it is "expressed"" is non-existent
> (though I later qualified this with the notion of inchoate,
> vague idea). And I should add that this only applies to
> our relative consciousness. Here's Wolff again:
> "At the deepest level of discernible thought there is a
> thinking that flows of itself. In its purity it employs none
> of the concepts that could be captured in definable words.
> It is fluidic rather than granular. It never isolates a
> definitive divided part, but everlastingly interblends with all.
> Every thought includes the whole of Eternity, and yet there
> are distinguishable thoughts. The unbroken Eternal flows
> before the mind, yet is endlessly colored anew with unlimited
> possibility. There is no labor in this thought. It is unrelated
> to all desiring, all images, and all symbols." [p. 308]

Ham said:
Inasmuch as Consciousness is Wolff's "essence", it is natural that he would
explain the dynamics of existential reality in terms of "conceptual
thinking".  This is not unlike my philosophy, except that Wolff's use of
Consciousness (which I assume equates to Intellect or Intelligence) to
define the nature of the Source makes it contingent upon existence.  In
other words, if there were no existence, Consciousness would have nothing to
apprehend.  This is why I prefer not to name the Source by such hypothesized
attributes as 'Potentiality', 'Value', 'Sensibility', or 'Intentionality'
but, rather, by its ontological function as the necessary root source, i.e.,
'Essence'.

Scott:
No, Wolff distinguishes between Consciousness-without-an-object from 
relative (subject/object) consciousness. You are interpreting Wolff by 
thinking of consciousness in its relative sense, which of course would not 
qualify it as ultimate reality. Wolff does not equate 
Consciousness-without-an-object with Intellect -- at least he doesn't say 
that, but then he doesn't say it isn't either. At one point he did say that 
he could have started with the words 'Life' or 'Substance' rather than 
Consciousness, but chose Consciousness because, although it is not to be 
understood in its relative sense, we can at least make some connection.

And he probably would say that Consciousness-without-an-object is the root 
source, in at least the sense that it is eternal, while this world is 
transitory. I don't like the 'source' vocabulary because it tends to 
distinguish the source from the result (and see below on causality). The 
wave/ocean analogy applies.

Ham asked:
> Why is an idea "inchoate" before it is expressed but
> cogent after it is expressed?

 Scott answered:
> I can agree that there might be something like an inchoate
> idea, some vague presentiment that hasn't been expressed.
> But the reason for trying to express it, and what is
> accomplished by expressing it, is to make it a concept.
> This is why one says "all language is metaphorical",
> because the first expression must employ metaphors
> (using old concepts in new ways). After a while, they
> become dead metaphors.

Ham said:
Well, to this I'll return your criticism of "nit-picking".  A concept is a
concept, whether it's conceived intellectually or imparted to others through
language.

Scott:
You've got the above quotes out of order. Your "asked" was part of a longer 
response to my "answer".

Scott continued:
> For me, yes, semiotics has the characteristic of 'essence
> of everything' ...But of course in saying it is the 'essence
> of everything' I am not saying that it exists independently
> of everything.  So I prefer to just say 'everything is semiotic'.

Ham said:
But if everything is semiotic, where is the essence?  It seems to me that
saying "everything is semiotic" is another way of saying that existence is
illusory.  Still, there must be a source behind the illusion.  That is, the
symbols and words must be derived from some primary source or nature.  If
you are a follower of Wolff, that source is Consciousness.

Scott:
I don't differentiate between 'essence' and 'concept' -- that is, I think 
that what philosophers traditionally called an 'essence' is tantamount to a 
concept. So the essence of a sign is the sign's meaning.

The problem with 'source' talk is that it tends to imply causality, but I 
see causality as a characteristic of the semiotic, not of 
Consciousness-without-an-object. That is, it within the semiotic that one 
gets spatiotemporality and causality (and other forms).

> Ham asked:
> Does the author suggest a better way to participate in
> objective reality?  Can you?

> Scott replied:
> Yes, cease thinking of objective reality *as* objective
> reality (that is, understand it as a creative projection,
> not as "just there", as signs to stimulate self-consciousness,
> not dead objects to be passively perceived.)

Ham said:
This is an espousal of "subjectivity" (as opposed to objectivism), as I see
it; and it is not incompatable with Essentialism as far as it goes.
However, as a philosophy of life, it leaves much to be desired.  For
example, what is the meaning or purpose of this "projection" of existence?
Is man a "special" creature?  Can or does he transcend this proprietary
world of being-aware?  Does Value have any role in your ontology?

Scott:
But I see it as neither subjective nor objective. I see it as semiotic.
The purpose of projection is creativity.
Humanity is "special" in this world (who knows what's happening in other 
realities) in that we have lost contact with ultimate reality (hence we need 
revelation) so that we have been able to develop localized 
self-consciousness in this world. Our next task is regain contact.
We transcend this world through intellect. We transcend S/O consciousness 
through mystical Awakening.
Value is another name for ultimate reality.

Now, because we have lost touch with ultimate reality, answers like those 
I've just given should be taken with a heaping spoonful of irony. From 
revelation (like Wolff's) and from experience in this world, these are the 
answers that make sense to me.

Ham said:
Or do we just accept this illusory existence for what it appears to be,
without cause, rhyme or reason?

Scott:
We learn to be creative in it. It is not illusion. It is reality. It is not 
all of reality, but it is the one we live in. I don't know why you think 
that calling objects signs somehow makes them less real (well, I do know 
why -- it's the modernist disease called nominalism). To me it makes them 
more real -- they have significance.

- Scott