[MD] Not Really Objectivism and the MOQ

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

Dear Ham,

I am Interested in hearing more about Eckhart.  Does anything like the notion of 
evolution fit into his view of things? 

BTW, the notion that man reclaims his lost essence and restores the integrity of 
absolute essence is, I believe, only half of the enlightened perspective.  Increasing
amounts of empirical research indicate the very structure of consciousness is evolving, 
seeking beyond while including anything previously determined.  Is Essentialism able 
to account for anything like this?

Thank you very much,
Laramie 






 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ham Priday<mailto:hampday1 at verizon.net> 
  To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org<mailto:moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:26 AM
  Subject: Re: [MD] Objectivism and the MOQ



  Hey, Laramie --

  You've got to get away from the office, wean yourself off that nasty
  capitalist habit, and spend more time on important things like the MD forum.
  It's people like you who are destroying the middle class, and you know how
  essential they are to a democratic society.  Before you know it the middle
  class will be on welfare too, and you'll be paying for the whole shebang!
  And when you visit the polls today, be sure to cast your vote for someone
  who wants to "move America
  in another direction"; but don't push them for an explanation.  That's a
  very popular platform in this year's election, particularly since "moving
  America forward" didn't seem to work too well in the last one.   (Sorry to
  politicize, but I'm sure you can appreciate that such op-eds help keep the
  liberals at bay.)

  I wrote:
  > What you and Wilber are describing is the psycho-intellectual
  > development of a human being.  This is not epistemology or
  > philosophy.  To say 'we become aware of proprietary awareness'
  > (PA) is a tautology.  PA is primary to its contents; it is the
  > pre-intellectual sensibility to value, the 'single-point perspective'
  > that defines the continuity of selfness through ALL stages of
  > development."

  You said:
  > If PA is primary to its contents AND pre-intellectual sensibility to
  > value, what is the meaning of "value" in this context?  How can there
  > be value in the absence of content?
  >
  > As soon as you introduce value, psycho-intellectual development
  > comes into the picture.

  Glad you raise that question.  The more I think about Value, the more I see
  it in the Pirsigian sense; that is, as the "primary empirical reality".
  Except that I view it as the representational "object" of Essence to the
  finite mind.  You are correct that there is no value in the absence of
  content.  But PA (and thanks for coining that acronym) is the focal point or
  locus of the self which has no content but an affinity for Value.  There is
  nothing like it in existence, since PA doesn't exist and, in its primal
  form, is only the "potentiality" for being-aware.


  Most people accuse me of deliberately abusing logic when I speak of the self
  as a "negate", because a negate is a nothingness.  I understand their
  objection to this concept.  (I was opposed to it too, until about two years
  ago when the idea of a "negational" Essence fell into place.)   And,
  since we have no logic for absolutes, I've invented one.  The negation of
  nothing by the absolute (Essence) does not equate to nothing; it creates a
  "dichotomy" which I define as awareness/beingness, commonly understood as
  Existence, the metaphysical ground for which is nothingness.


  I refer to this paradigm as the "Negate Cycle of Essence" in my thesis and,
  while the details may be fuzzy, it has resolved the perennial questions of
  cosmology for me, as well as giving me a philosophy I can believe in.  You
  paid me a high compliment (I think) when you said "I believe Essentialism is
  ultimately a universal, Kosmocentric perspective."  I do think it's a
  philosophy that could have universal appeal, but I'm not quite sure what a
  "Kosmocentric perspective" is.  I'll check into Ken Wilber, but perhaps
  you'll be kind enough to explain it to me.

  Thanks for another opportunity, and keep in touch.  (I'm particularly
  interested in how you see the fundamental axioms of Objectivism, as outlined
  by Peikoff, squaring with the MoQ -- re: my recent exchange with Micah.)

  Essentially yours,
  Ham


  moq_discuss mailing list
  Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org>
  Archives:
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/>
  http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/<http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/>