[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Ham Priday]

Gene --


> I sort of see the MOQ as the left hand clapping and Essentialism as the
> Right hand clapping, at this point. Who's to say a carbon atom's
experience
> of reality isn't completely subjective as well? There's no doubt in my
mind
> that Essentialism describes human perception of Reality amazingly well, so
> far it's my favourite story about how we perceive the world. But how does
> the world perceive itself?
>
> Maybe it's all just a bunch of subjects interacting.

The "left hand" in my Philosophy of Essence is the objective half of the
self/other dichotomy.
But I like your analogy, and to "perceive" is the correct functional word
for both subjectivity and awareness.  But do you really believe the world
perceives itself?   Is this a principle of Taoism, Vitalism, or New Age
philosophy that I've missed?

Historians chronicle past events and students of history pass judgment on
them.  Our libraries  and the Internet are crammed with reflective
commentary on politics, literature, art, science, nature, morality,
international relations, and just about any world topic you can name.  I can
see no reason or need to ascribe subjectivity to a universe that is largely
inanimate.  But possibly by "the world" you mean to suggest something
greater than the physical universe.  A Creator, for example, a Collective
Consciousness -- or an aesthetic Absolute, perhaps?

Protagoras said: "Of all things the measure is man, of the things that are,
that [or "how"] they are, and of things that are not, that [or "how"] they
are not."  And that's precisely the point of cognizant awareness.  That's
why you and I have it, and the tree and the coffee cup do not.  Objective
things have the "beingness" that our subjective experience gives them.
Nothing in our experience, unless we cling to superstition or mythology,
implies that inanimate objects
possess sentience or perception, that they are aware of values or morality.
It takes the imagination of a philosopher with an axe to grind about
theology (and a band of gullible loyalists to quote him) to perpetuate the
myth that the universe is innately moral and that atoms, rocks, and amoeba
experience value.

Me thinks you expect too much of your world, Gene.  I suggest that you
settle for the values it adds to your life-experience and not be concerned
that it is incapable of perceiving you.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words about Essentialism.  I'm sure that the
responses that follow will be much less complimentary.

Essentially yours,
Ham