[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ.

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

Ham -- 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!

Chin -- It seems I do owe you an apology. The way I read the way you 
were using Essence left me thinking you used the word outside the 
meaning of Essence in Essentialism, but now I understand your 
philosophy is pure Essentialism, right? 

So if we were to continue this discussion, it would have to be one of 
Essentialism -vs.- anti-Essentialism. I wouldn’t be interested. 

BTW, any time you see a little Smiley Face at the end of one of my 
statements, it means I am trying to be funny. Guess it doesn’t work, 
huh? 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:31 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism and the MOQ.
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> 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 
> existentialismis 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 
> sophomoreto 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
> 
> 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/
>