[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

Sat Nov 25 06:11:59 PST 2006

Ham) 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? 

Chin) I don’t know, but like I said, it gets me confused. At some 
points, you appear to tie it to Empiricism and Positivism, but then 
turn around and tie it to Eastern spirituality. Essentialism is an 
existing philosophy, and yes it is based on SOM, but Eastern 
spirituality is not, and if you start mixing the two, the reader gets 
confused, or at least I do. 

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

Ham) A number of them do. But you've quoted this statement out of 
context.

Chin) You may be getting yourself confused. If your philosophy is 
positivism or empiricism in a Western tone, then SOM works. When you 
bring in Eastern concepts such as Awareness, or start speaking of God 
in a SOM based philosophy, it doesn’t work. 

Essence could be SOM based as in the Ether, Aether, or as the 
physicists use it, Quintessence to describe dark energy/matter, the 
fifth element, or it can be used in spirituality as you use it, found 
from within, such as consciousness and awareness found in Ancient Zen 
on through Modern Buddhism.  

Am I mistaken thinking you ‘Are’ trying to combine the two uses of 
Essence? 

This might explain my ability to take “this statement out of context.” 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:12 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism and the MOQ
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> 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 
> Westernaudience.  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] 
> knowingis 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 
> knowingor 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
> 
> 
> 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/
> 