[MD] Essence: Reciprocal View

[Ham Priday]

Hello SA --


> Ham, this is exactly the 'why' some people view
> your thesis differently.  What I'm saying is I view
> this reciprocity as two views contained within the
> same reality.  It is these opposing views, the one
> that negates the source, and the other view that Value
> realized is this together.  Thus, the first view is
> where you were coming from to explain yourself
> (thesis, etc...).  The second view is where I was
> coming from.  Thus, your view and my view, on the
> surface, seemed to have us noticing reality from two
> far away points of view. ...
> This is why some time back I did agree with
> you that Essence is really not divided and Essence is
> right here, right now, not divided.  You agreed with
> this statement as well.  I think what happened is this
> Essence undivided presently is Value realized.
> Essence divided is negation.  Yet, as you are
> beginning to point out it is this reciprocity view
> that is two views, but as a reciprocity view we're
> actually talking about one view or no view, maybe.
> One view for Essence negated and Value realized are
> the same reality.  No view for Essence is undivided
> and we can't view anything when Essence is undivided,
> which is the same as Value realized. ...
> reciprocity view of one view/no view is still Essence
> or you might call it reciprocity view.  Is this
> anything close to how your viewing this?

I recognize that MoQ and Essentialism are two different philosophies, but
I'm also aware that one of them (for the author's stated reasons) lacks the
support of a metaphysical ontology.  In other words, the MoQ posits no cause
or source for what it calls Dynamic Quality, and one is left to decide for
himself whether this non-entity is self-created, an eternal principle, or a
euphemistic paradigm.  Since the "levels" of quality are obviously arbitrary
and subject to much debate, I don't regard them as essential to the Quality
hypothesis and dismiss them.

I'm running an essay on the reciprocity of negation vs. affirmation on this
week's Value Page at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm which you might want
to review.   Basically, Essentialism is one philosophy that deals with two
realities.  One is experiential, divided, conditional, and made of finite
beingness.  The other is absolute, undivided, unconditional, and essential
(as the primary source).  The only thing that links these two realities
together is the Value of the division between them.  Thus, while it is
negation that divides, it is the Value realized by the negated subject that
unites.  I propose that this is a metaphysical  principle that is just as
true as the physical law of the conservation of energy.  But, again, I make
no claim for "absolute truth"; it is only my hypothesis.

> long time no talk

I've been maintaining "silence" in deference to the request you made some
time ago.  But, as you see, I'm always willing to respond to relevant
questions, especially those that concern my philosophy.

Thanks for your continued interest, SA.

Essentially yours,
Ham