[MD] Pressed Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA --

DMB says:
> See, the problem is that your Essentialism is
> essentially an SOM view.

SA says:
>  I'm pretty sure Ham has to know this by now?
> This not so sure comment is intended towards Ham.

If this is a question to me, I think you've answered it.

DMB continues:
> You are dishing up the very thing that the MOQ
> seeks to overcome.

SA agrees:
>   Yeaper, it seems that way.

DMB:
> Essentialism is predicated on the very assumptions
> that the MOQ overturns. The self/other dichotomy
> is the very essence of SOM. That's why you're at
> odds around here.

SA:
> Surely Ham...?
>
> This is exactly why I read what Ham says, and
> think surely Ham believes in Essence where dualism
> does NOT exist.  Then I've been in discussions with
> Ham where Oneness is denied by Ham.

You've either misread or misunderstood Ham.  Please show me where I have
ever denied Oneness.  My original manuscript submitted for publication bore
the title: "One in Essence"

> Where all-is-connected has been denied by Ham.
> Yet, I scratch my head and think to myself, surely Ham
> believes in Essence.  Then Ham may comment, let me
> know Ham if I'm off-track or not, that nothingness
> separates us and existence has distinctions, and yet,
> in the back of my head I know this all boils down to
> Essence where no distinctions, no self/other, is
> present known as Essence.

Ah, yes!  But "all-is-connected" is not Oneness; it is a fusion of the many.
(I might have denied that analogy.)  Connections and "levels" don't work.
The United States is one nation united, but it contains 50 individual
states.  Elevator shafts include several levels, but the elevator only
reaches one level at a time.  Essence does not contain divisions -- this,
that, or other.  It is One Absolute without distinctions or differences.
The distinctions and differences are in existence, not in Essence.

> Quality points out the significance, the value, in not just
> the self but the other, too.  Instead of 1 and 1 being
> separated, couldn't we just mention Essence and notice
> 1+1 all adds up to 2.  Or in other words, when I experience
> self/other in a relationship, I'm seeing Essence,
> which as dmb mentions, I'm viewin' beyond SOM or to
> use Ham's terminology, I'm viewin' beyond existence
> (as Ham defines to be self/other dichotomy, right?)

Wrong.  In Essence there are no "1s" or "2s", and mathematics doesn't apply.
Finite entities do not exist in Essence.  You can't add subject and object
and get Essence.  Not even Value can be ascribed to Essence.  It is not
possible for the human mind to "view beyond SOM" and "see Essence".  The
only way to consider Essence is to posit it logically as Cusa did: the
Not-other.

> and thus, I'm livin' relationships, values, families,
> touchin' trees with my hands, and dirt with my toes.
> Isn't that the Essence of this, the Quality of this,
> the Significance of this, the Spirit of this?  I say
> yes.

"Yes" to what?  Your prose is lovely, but it doesn't define Essence in a way
that one can respond yea or ney to.  You could be talking about values or
love or having fun or simply what's important to you.  Essence is none of
those things.  Most significantly Essence is not you.  (That tends to
discourage the Buddhists.)

But keep trying.  Free expression lacks discipline, but by the law of
probabilities it occasionally makes a valid point.

Best regards,
Ham