[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

Sat Nov 25 20:15:01 PST 2006

Hi Ham,

I read about half way through. I had read this earlier, and reading 
through it a second time reminded me why I didn’t agree with you. What 
you offer as factual, I consider questionable;

Ham) For something "to be" it must first be differentially perceptible 
to an observer as a finite other.

Ham) Since everything that has "being" is differentiated by 
nothingness, and being is what we call "reality", without nothingness 
our reality could not exist. 

Ham) Thus, Essence, which is defined as "all that is", is the 
equivalent of "nothing that is not." So that, even from the finite 
perspective, Essence can be conceived as both absolute potentiality 
and absolute actuality without contradiction. Since negation does not 
alter the absolute source, it is manifested as a dichotomy of 
nothingness and beingness, which is the appearance of differentiated 
existence.

Ham) This denial of Nothingness creates difference—that is, it 
actualizes Sensibility in contradiction to Beingness. In metaphysical 
terms, denial is a negation—in the first instance, the negation of 
nothingness. Nothingness literally means "no-thing"—the absence of 
existential being—which is why I refer to it as the "negate". 
Nothingness does not exist, either in Essence or in physical reality, 
because Essence negates it. Negation is not a singular event but, 
rather, an inferred characteristic of Essence that is reflected in the 
actualized nothingness that differentiates and defines "beingness" and 
sensibility in existence. Eckhart's teachings support this 
hypothesis: "To create is to give being out of nothing," he says. 

Chin) I stopped here if you don’t mind. BTW, in Eckhart, man has 
always been, is, and always will be this ‘I” even if he doesn’t 
realize he is this ‘I’. Eckhart claimed it all is “of the ground of 
the soul.” Ironically, Eckhart does support Pirsig in his morality 
issues -- “Just man.” 

And, pretty much what I have read so far is as I suspected from 
reading what you have written in this forum, an attempt to bring 
Eastern spirituality and religion into Western metaphysics. This is 
also what Pirsig has attempted with Eastern spirituality, to a degree, 
but mainly to question the dichotomy of SOM. 

It would seem to me that in order for the reader to accept what you 
have written, they would have to accept that they create reality, such 
as reality being no more than image of the observer, such as in Easter 
spirituality. But, it seems I remember you stating this dichotomy of 
subject and object is how we think. If it is, then Eastern 
spirituality is not going to fit in the way we think. 

Essence is used in physics (quintessence), philosophy, metaphysics and 
Buddhism, but different in each. You couldn’t reinvent the meaning of 
Essence to fit into all. 

Don’t get me wrong. I applaud your efforts, but am not convinced you 
have found something with the potentiality you suppose it has. 

And, sorry for the negative tone, but I wouldn’t be much of a person, 
not a real ‘I’, if I were not honest. 

I do believe in self-awareness, consciousness, self-reflection, and 
self-observation. It is my belief that by being conscious of the 
person you are can lead to improvements in the person you become. We 
know what Quality is, and by being conscious of our nature, our nature 
improves. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meister-eckhart/ 
“The I that knows itself, wills itself, and is its own abode, and 
therewith the I that is, in univocal causality, cause of itself and 
yet, in this unity, the one rationality, is, according to Eckhart, 
what man ought to become and what man can become in taking on the true 
poverty of spirit. This is so since man has always been this I, is now 
this I, and always will be this I, even if he knows nothing of himself 
as this I.”

This stated, “We know what Quality is,“ I must offer, I am not 
a “Pirsig follower,” but do admire Pirsig for his thoughts offered in 
ZAMM as stating his logical reasoning well prior to Lila. Reading only 
Lila may place one in a position you have taken towards his 
philosophy. Have you read ZAMM? 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Date: Saturday, November 25, 2006 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism and the MOQ
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 
> 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 
> supportmy 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 
> explainexistence 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 
> reunitedwith 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 
> Essentialismis 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
> 
> 
> 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/
> 