[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Chin --

> 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.

I'd like to know what, specifically, you find questionable in these
statements.
For example, relative to the quoted passages, do you believe:
1) that any being can exist without one's awareness of it?
2) that a particular object can be identified or recognized without being
    separated from everything else?
3) that the proposition "all that is" does not imply "nothing that is not"?
4) that it is a contradiction for absolute potentiality to be the cause
          of absolute actuality?
5) that existence is not a dichotomy whose contingencies are awareness
and beingness?
6) that Eckhart did not say "To create is to give being out of nothing"?

[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.”

What other "I" would an individual be than his Self, his being-aware?
Incidentally, I have some problems with Eckhart's phrase "ground of the
soul," which I think is ambiguous.  If by "ground" Eckhart means "essence",
then he's saying that the soul is indigenous to God's essence, which I
reject.  On the other hand, if by "ground" he means "cause" or "source" of
the soul, obviously there can be no disagreement.  I'm also assuming that
Eckhart is not equating "soul" with the Creator but with the individual
psyche or self.

> 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.

As I've said before, I'm using quotations from other sources only to support
MY thesis, not to merge disparate views or ideologies.

> 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 Eastern 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.

Individuals create the finite "images" of reality, not reality itself.  The
reality they confront is the Essence from which they were separated at
creation; they sense Essence as their Value but are cognizant of it only as
beingness.  Thus, the value they extract from Essence relates to the
self/other dichotomy.  The dichotomy is not so much "how we think" but "how
we are."  Specifically, value sensibility is an affirmation of the Essence
lost to the negated self in creating the dichotomy.  I really don't know if
Eastern spirituality supports this ontology, but it is the premise of my
philosophy.

> 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.

Once again, Chin, I'm not trying to "fit all meanings" of Essence.  The
Greek philosophers defined "essences" (in the plural) as the nature of
various classes or phyla of objects and creatures.  The existentialists
defined essence as Being.  Physicists may define essence as quarks, energy,
strings, or fields -- I'm not sure and they aren't either.  My definition is
the uncreated, absolute source of what IS.

> 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.

No need for an apology.  I certainly wouldn't want you to be less than
honest or ingenuous for my sake.  It's understandable that you may see flaws
in my theory, or that you simply find the MoQ more satisfying or less
problematic.
> 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.

Socrates said: "Know thyself. ...The unexamined life is not worth living."
This is probably the wisest maxim ever offered by a philosopher.

Thanks for the Eckhart web page which is a really good analysis that I
hadn't seen before.  The one objection I have to the quoted statement is the
phrase "cause of itself" as applied to "the 'I' that knows itself."  Human
beings create their objective world, direct their "becoming in the world",
and even change the world to suit their needs.  But man is not a 'causa
sui'; he does not create himself.

> 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?

Yes, I've read both ZMM and LILA, but do not use them as philosophical
textbooks.  I believe Pirsig is an original thinker and a fine novelist, and
I welcome his non-materialistic approach to philosophy.  My major problems
with Pirsig are that he assiduously avoids metaphysics, is paranoiac about
theism and transcendence, and fails to offer a meaningful role for man in
his philosophy.  Also, I think I know what Value is; but, like Value,
Quality is relative to the person who evaluates it.  I do not see Quality by
any definition as a non-conditional entity that can stand by itself as the
primary reality.

Regards,
Ham