[MD] [MD} Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomanalism

[Gene M]

> I can't let the admission that you "want to like [Essentialism] but can't"
> pass me by without correcting some of Mark's misconceptions.  Since you
> quoted only Mark's take on my "position", allow me to clarify some of
> the ideas that may be bothering you.

Glad of the opportunity for a refresher!

> Mark (defining Ham's position) said:
> > Ham's position:
> > 1. '...what you might believe is "predetermined to happen"
> > at some future time is already complete in the Oneness of Essence.'
>
> Ham's real position:
> Determinism is an intellectual construct that allows events in time to be
> theorized as
> the result of causal effects.  The theory is that were we to know all the
> causes, we could predict all the effects.  The truth is that we can know
> only some causes, most of them after the fact.  Because man does not have
> foreknowledge of the consequences of his actions, he is not part of the
> "causal chain" and is free to choose.  Moreover, evolution is the temporal
> mode of human experience, while Essence transcends both time and space.
> >From the Essential perspective, there is no past or future; all that happens
> in actualized existence is a fait accompli.

This is, I think the section that bothers me the most. Assertions like
"Because man does not have foreknowledge of the consequences of his
actions, he is not part of the "causal chain" and is free to choose"
seem sort of tenuous to me, as self-evident as it may be to you. I'll
get back to this further.

> Mark said:
> > 2. 'Metaphysically man is detached from Essence which
> > is his experiential object.'
> > 3. 'Man has a differentiated view of this object that
> > represents his essence'
> > 4. 'Man is created such that his awareness is separated
> > from his essence'.
>
> Ham's real position:
> Pure awareness has no essence apart from the Essential Source.  In
> actualized existence, proprietary awareness acquires the value of its
> estranged essence and objectivizes this value differentially, as things and
> events.  In that sense, objects represent the values of his essence.

I am totally cool with this! Man's perceptions are an overlay over
"objective" reality. His perceptions of what is actually there creates
a subjective awareness. Me and It. However the It we see is actually
us. Just differentiated by our minds.

This is the stuff I like the best! I can completely dig it, and can
tie it really easily into the MOQ. And Taoisme for that matter. It's
very good stuff. The Essentialism I Can like!

> Mark said:
> > 5. 'Man is free because he is not tied to causal reality.'
> > 6. 'Man's sense of value is his affinity for Essence in actualized
> > experience...'
> > 7. Teleology is valuistic whereby man reclaims his estranged
> > essence.'
>
> Ham's real position:
> Man is free because he is an autonomous agent of Essence; that is, his
> choices and decisions are not biased by absolute knowledge (which would
> render him a robot.)  The teleology of Essentialism is the 'perfection' of
> Essence through the extrinsic view of its Value by a conditional "other"
> (i.e., the cognizant individual).  This other is conditional in that it does
> not experience Essence directly, but only as represented by its perceived
> values.  Hence, the true essence of Man is the value with which he
> identifies.  It is this value which he "reclaims" in the life-experience.

And then we return once again to the part of Essentialism I dislike
somewhat. I'm gonna tell a story here.

Back a year ago or so I was thinking along similar lines as you, I was
bored at work and started writing up a rough draft of my personal
metaphysics, just with pencil on scrap paper mostly. I got really into
it, going into all this detail, and justifying everything, and
naturally in my writings I had the existence of Free Will as sort of a
given assumption, and thus added in all sorts of stuff to justify it.
Mostly very SOM stuff, frankly. Later that week I was talking with my
room mate, explaining to him all the stuff I had been writing down.
And then I got him to explain to me His view of Reality, and I
realized that it is almost identical to my own, except his was built
without Any free will at all! In fact, it was pretty much totally
Deterministic in fact. So we argued about it for a long time, until I
finally realized where the schism was, and that his ideas were as
logically consistent as mine.

That's when I realized the question fo Free Will vs. Determinism is
useless in a metaphysics. Since it can never be answered, it needs to
be discarded, like a variable on both sides of an equation. That's
where I think I, and a lot of people, have trouble with Essentialism.
Because trying to tack Free Will onto, just causes all these logical
excesses, absurdities and unnecesarry. It becomes almost victorian in
it's wroughten nature.

So I highly recommend you consider abandoning the whole Free Will Vs.
Determinism question. It's a moot point. Undecidable, thus untenable.
A poor position to hold one way or the other. Ignore the question and
live life as you will.

I find most things are defined by what they have added on to Taoism.
And the most pure philosphies are those that are closest to it. But
that's just a personal aestetique choice.

-Gene