[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ.

[Ham Priday]

Chin --

No, you didn't insult me, Chin.  But I couldn't make much sense out of what
you were saying and so was unable to comment intelligently.

For example:
> If Essence is derived from Existentialism,
> and Existentialism is pure Objectivism, and
> Essence is your scientific view of Everything,
> but scientific evidence cannot be expected to
> support Essence, I think I might be better off
> drunk. ;o)

I don't know where these premises come from but they're all false.
Essence isn't derived from Existentialism.  The "essence" of existentialism
is Beingness which I do not regard as essential.  Essence is not a
"scientific view" of anything, nor does my philosophy (which, by the way, is
called Essentialism) discuss science.  I do not base Essentialism on
scientific theory.  The only statement I won't contest is that you might be
better off drunk!

Joe seems to be continuing in your direction.

My friend Platt gave up after my second post on Essentialism, claiming that
my definitions were not simple enough for the average high school sophomore
to comprehend.

Admittedly, I haven't read Gurdjieff in a good many years, but this
statement by Joe, who I assume to be sober, has me completely baffled.
Perhaps one of you will be kind enough to translate this comment into
something that will make sense to an average college graduate who once
majored in science.

> Conscious awareness evolves at the fifth level through
> my remembered good impressions increasing awareness.
> Only a conscious remembering of myself can sort
> through what kind of impressions I have experienced.
> Impressions, air, food are a conscious wake up call for
> a self remembering of good that can lead me to
> enlightenment at the sixth and seventh levels.
> Good before Truth.

It's possible, once I've understood the meaning of such a seemingly profound
statement, that I might have the confidence to continue this discussion.
(But don't hold your breath!)

Thanks for your patience.

Regards,
Ham