[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Chin [Laramie mentioned] --



> The more I read what you write, the more confused
> I get.  It appears to me, you are using Eastern terminology
> to describe Western concepts.
>
> You said,  “I've said this many times ... the capacity (or
> potentiality) for awareness must be independent of the Source.”?
>
> This is not an Eastern or Western accepted concept I am
> aware of.  Where is it stated?

I stated it in my on-line thesis.  Why should you be concerned over whether
it's an "Eastern" or a "Western" concept?  Essentialism has the potential to
become a universal philosophy, although I've developed it for a Western
audience.  The terminology I use to explain it is my own, and I've provided
a glossary to define the meanings.  Must I adhere to some "accepted"
doctrine when postulating an original philosophy?

> What “ . . . biologists, physicists, and cosmologists
> [who are the source of most of my factual knowledge.]”
> which you said further down, point to this concept?

A number of them do.  But you've quoted this statement out of context.
Laramie had referred me to an analysis of two philosophers (Aurobindo and
Hartshorne) who contested the view that ''perfect knowing'' is exclusive to
God.  I suggested that "perfect knowing is absolute sensibility which is
undivided and not subject to the conditions of finitude... [while] knowing
is the incremental, finite differentiation of Absolute Oneness performed by
man's intellect."  Laramie called my response "static stuff", to which I
then replied:

> Static is a Pirsigian construct.  Actually, our perspective
> of reality is that of a system in constant transition -- definitely
> dynamic.  I could be wrong too; but if I am, my experience
> has deceived me.  And so has the experience of biologists,
> physicists, and cosmologists who are the source of most of
> my factual knowledge.

In other words, most of our factual knowledge comes from Science, or at
least is based on scientific principles of understanding.

> You go on to say, “It is what I referred to before as ‘pure
> awareness’ . . . ”
>
> I’ll interrupt to say Pure Awareness would be the
> Dharma Mind, and you continue
>
> “ . . . which one could define as the locus of conscious
> awareness or, simply, self-awareness.”
>
> I’m not sure whether you mean your own personal self or
> Self, as in the Big Self.

The "Big Self" metaphor is contradictory to my ontology.  I view the
individual "self" as the subjective half of the subject/object dichotomy,
not as a finite "unit" of the undivided Source.

> But then you go on to say, “It is the screen upon which
> the differentiated images of reality appear. We define ‘facts’
> based on the interrelation of these images as perceived by
> the intellect.”
>
> The intellect in Eastern spirituality would be part of the Ego.
> The “screen,” or “images” would be the false images you
> have built up by the intellect, this ego.

I agree with this concept, except that I don't consider the intellect part
of the ego.  Intellect is the seat of intelligence -- the power of knowing
or thinking, as distinguished from "ego" which is the will or desire to
substantiate the self.  Intellect is a cerebral function which deals mainly
with finite concepts or constructs (i.e., the "images" of physical reality).
Will and desire express man's sensibility to value, and more closely define
what some call the 'soul' and I describe as the psycho-emotional core of
man's being.

> TIA for any clarification.

You're very welcome, Chin.  I hope it has lessened your confusion.

Regards,
Ham