[MD] Not Really Objectivism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Laramie --

I'm curious.  Is "Not Really Objectivism" a reference to Rand's philosophy
or mine?


> Someone asked you recently about the relation of
> the One and the Many.  You replied that Essentialism
> addresses this, while the MoQ does not.  But you
> articulate the relation between PA and existence from
> a perspective that assumes they are separate to begin
> with.  I'm suggesting PA encompasses existence, but
> is NEVER separate from it, which I believe is also
> held by the MoQ.  Sorry to press on, but if you are
> willing to discuss this, I want to be sure you at least
> understand the question.

I understand that existence is the image or "appearance" of existence that
constitutes PA and defines it.  But I think "encompasses" is the wrong term
for the relationship between a negated entity that has no existence of its
own and its perceived objects.  So I disagree that there is no separation of
PA from the ground of existence.  Let me try to explain the dynamics of my
epistemology.

Proprietary awareness and differentiated existence (beingness) are mutually
exclusive contingencies of the dichotomy we call existence.  I have
hypothesized existence as the "actualized" or differentiated mode of Essence
whose identity is absolute.  Any other identity is either nothingness or a
product of nothingness that has been negated by Essence to create the
appearance of Difference.  Thus, pure proprietary awareness [PPA?] is itself
a nothingness and everything that it experiences is grounded in nothingness.

As a negate, PPA is definitely --absolutely -- separated from Essence.  Its
only connection to Essence is through Value.

Negation has an inverse relation to Affirmation.  Like the negatively
charged electron which is attracted to the positive proton, the negate
(i.e., PPA) has an affinity for the value of Essence.  [I use the term
"sensibility" to express this affinity and distinguish it from
"experience".]  It is this value from which the intellect, in turn,
"constructs" the beingness (objects) of existence.  The process of creating
physical reality out of value goes on incrementally thoughout the life of
the individual.

Does this explanation help you understand my epistemology?  If not, I'll try
again later.

Thanks, Laramie
Ham

P.S.  I see you have a question about Eckhart under the "Essentialism"
header which I promise to get to tomorrow.  (I'll have more time now that
Platt has bowed out of our dialogue.)