[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Chin --

[Ham, previously]:


> 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.

[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.

I don't presume that my readers are any more acquainted with Eastern
concepts, or what may be considered "existing" Essentialism, than I am.
Instead, I present whatever background information is necessary to support
my thesis, whether it comes from theological, Eastern or Western sources.
IMO too many people make assumptions based on what they have heard or read
and try to categorize the material rather than aiming at comprehension of
what is presented.  This is unnecessary and can lead to confusion.

> 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?

I don't know if you have read my thesis or are simply evaluating the
comments I've stated here.  I'm not consciously trying to synthesize or
reconcile Buddhistic ideas with modern physics or any other ideology.  While
the term 'Essentialism' has been used in other contexts, the Philosophy of
Essence is original with me.

My philosophy is not based on SOM but on an uncreated, absolute source I
call Essence.  I acknowledge the subject/object dichotomy (physical
existence) as the "actualized mode" of Essence.  I do not view existence as
a multi-level heirarchy, since Essence is indivisible.  Instead, I explain
existence as a "negation" of Essence which creates the appearance of being
divided by nothingness in space and time.  The cognizant subject of this
dichotomy is the individuated self, and the object(s) experienced is what
the subject intellectualizes or "constructs" from its differentiated sense
of Essence-Value.

Value is not an "existent"; it is the affinity of the negated self for its
estranged Essence -- a "negation of negation" that I call "affirmation".
The life-experience of every individual is the process of making
"being-aware" of Value.  With every experience a measure of value is
acquired by the self from Essence, leaving an insentient "residue" which the
intellect interprets as a particular object or event in space/time.
Ultimately, the self reclaims its quota of negated value and is reunited
with the source, at which point the self/other dichotomy is voided along
with the appearance of finitude.

Perhaps this simplified ontology will give you an idea of what Essentialism
is all about and dispel some of your confusion.  However, I would suggest
that you read my Creation hypothesis for a fuller explanation.  You can
access it at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality.

Good luck, and feel free to come back with specific questions related to the
thesis.

Essentially yours,
Ham