[MD] Pressed Ham

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Hi Ham et al

I think that your essence is equivalent to DQ except that you more strongly
resist the urge to name it as Pirsig has done, thus it could be regarded as
a more inclusive term? 
Personally I see unpatterned quality to be all inclusive though, so if you
go by what you guess I think I'm actually alluding to rather than what the
dictionary constrains my vocabulary to represent.....

Can you describe any fundamental differences between what you perceive me to
understand by unpatterned quality (DQ), and what you perceive to be essence?
(Basically I need us both to be psychic)

If they are in fact identical then lets toss a coin and pick one term or
other to use in conversation?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 17 August 2006 09:13
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Pressed Ham
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk