[MD] Essentialism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --


> Ham,
> Thank you for clarifying that for me, you must get blue
> in the face repeating yourself, I've gone through the archives
> to get a better grasp of your theory, but it seems I was
> close, now I must re-read your paper concerning this,
> the first go at it, I was confused by the terminology and
> their relationships but I think I have it now.
> Thanks again!

Yes, I've had to repeat myself on this question, but am always happy to
oblige when it comes to my philosophy.  Also, it's a good exercise in how to
present it in different ways, depending on where the questioner is coming
from.  I may have slighted you with that Taoist formulation.  (I trust you
received the complete post.)  Since you appear to be genuinely interested,
let me give you a précis of the ontology which is elaborated at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality .

First, it might be useful to know how I think Essentialism differs from the
MoQ.  I don't assume any levels, speak in patternese, or divide reality into
dynamic and static modes.  However, as you already know, I do assume a
primary source which is based on Cusa's Not-other and a Hegelian concept of
Negation which for many is the most troublesome part.  (You'll find a very
complete analysis of this hypothesis in the above-referenced section.)  I
also discuss "creation" in the present tense for two reasons: Time is the
mode of human experience, whereas
process and change do not affect the "Creator" (Essence); also, I view
creation as a constant attribute of Essence, like negation and
value-affirmation.

Basically, Essence is uncreated, absolute, immutable, all-sensible, and
negational.  Any definitive description beyond that is impossible from the
human perspective.  Muitiplicity or "plenitude" arises as Difference, which
is an illusory reduction of Essence.  Difference is derived from absolute
Essence by negation.  I have concluded that what Essence negates is its
antithetical nothingness; however, this makes nothingness an "active agent"
in existence  which seems illogical to some, and I allow that Value is also
a possible negate.  It makes little difference metaphysically, since the
"division of otherness" that negation causes is perceived as Value by
Awareness which is existential nothingness.  (While I refer to Awareness as
the "negate" in my thesis, there may be grounds for defining it as
Value-awareness -- I'm open to suggestions on this.)  You'll note that I
refer to subject and object as mutually exlusive but co-dependent "essents"
in order to distinguish them from primary essence.

In any case, Awareness (derived from absolute sensibility) is proprietary to
the subject of the S/O dichotomy that is created by negation.  I describe
existential reality as a differentiated system in which everything is
experienced relative to everything else.  This includes the individuation of
Awareness into a multiplicity of "selves", each identified with a specific
organism (i.e., physical body).  Since the mode of experience is framed in
time and space, existence is perceived as things and events localized in
space and occurring serially (as process in time).

Rather than ascribe Value (Quality) to the primary source, I treat it as
sensory and relate it to the S/O divide in which it functions as a
counter-principle to the Negation that creates it.  Man (whom I define as
earth's value-sensible creature) is driven by Value (his estranged Essence),
but he intellectualizes it as "beingness" by constructing phenomena in
space/time that represent (embodies) the relative values he perceives.
Actually, he's looking at Essence (from which he is separated) across the
divide of nothingness, senses his loss of Essence as Value, and "invents" a
world of finite beings to compensate for this loss.  Each being that he
constructs is a "secondary negation" performed by his intellect and
corresponding to the relative Value he perceives.  Metaphysically, the Value
he acquires in the process of intellection "fills" or supplants the
nothingness at his core, ultimately dissolving the division and affirming
("refreshing?") this value in the Oneness of Essence.

So you see, Ron, it's a bit more involved than the Taoist formulation.  I
hope this brief guide helps in comprehending my philosophy of Essence.  I
also hope to come up with a "simplified" version of this thesis before I
leave this world.

Okay, I'll take questions from the audience now ;-).

Thanks, and good luck,
Ham