[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA, Laird --

SA has raised the same point I did in my last post to Laird:

> Why use the term existence (lowercase) to describe
> rationalized, the intellection?  I do understand we
> rationalize and intellectualize 'into' Existence.  I
> would say, instead of 'into', that we rationalize and
> intellectualize Existence.

Laird explains:
> [Ham's] definition placed Existence as the "output" of
> rationalization and intellectualization, mine placed
> Existence at the "input", so I stuck a compromise-word
> in there to ease the gap. With the compromise word,
> the statement becomes "We rationalize and intellectualize
> Existence into existence." It does sound circular and
> confusing, so let's go with the shorter one.

In the interest of clarity, why not say: We intellectualize Being into
Existence, since it is "beingness" that we experience.  This makes the term
"whole of Existence" (i.e., whole of SQ) unnecessary and meaningless because
it can't be experienced.

Incidentally, Laird put his finger on the epistemological difference between
us when he used the "input" and "output" analogy.  Indeed, I do claim that
Existence is the "output" of intellectual conception (cognizance).  The
"input" is Value; but even that must be differentiated (by the five organic
senses) before it is perceived.  This fact is intellectualized as the
precept that beingness has light and color, geometric form, mass or texture,
taste, smell, and sound.  Thus, particular objects (of being) are identified
and experienced by some combination of these value-intellectualized
attributes.

The only aspect of Existence/existence still in question are the dimensional
properties.  I say time and space define the mode of human experience.
Laird says they're pre-intellectual, which doesn't really contradict what is
a "mode of experience".  I would suggest that the brain and nervous system
act as a kind of "filter" of the incoming Value, allowing us cognizance of
only one phenomenon at a time (i.e., the present experience with its
representative value attributes), and fixing the locus of this experience
within a 3-dimensional spacial framework.

Nothingness normally prevents all other Value from passing through this
filtering system.  (Occasionally the filter "leaks", and we have psychics
with some cognizance of future events or other paranormal experiences.)
But it's all geared (designed?) to convert the Value of Essence into a
'virtual reality' in which living and inorganic objects evolve or move in
time and space within an orderly, self-sustaining  universe.

I have a suspicious feeling that we're about to see this epistemology
translated into obtuse mathematical expressions and equations borrowed from
quantum mechanics and neuro-physicists.  Permit me to remind you all that
Science was developed to investigate and analyze the objective world.  The
study of subjective consciousness, values, morality, esthetics, absolutes,
essence, and nothingness remains the province of Philosophy.

Cheers, and good luck,
Ham