[MD] Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

Ham,
I now understand your intrest in Micah's "nothing can be proved to exist outside humans"
And "man is the measure" when I was contemplating this I began reading Gottlieb Fichte
And his concept of "the self positing I" and now after reviewing Hegel, all this collects
And begins to jell and few questions emerge, "essence" seems close to Hegels "geist" 
Essentialism's C++ logic type "negation" is similar to Hegels dialectic of thesis, antithesis,
Synthesis or law of change. Toward ultimate "oneness" with "geist" Hegel was on the platonic side
And mixed his philosophy with christianty, while others view it as a sort of religeon without a god 
or even pantheism While Marx took it to the materialist side, so my question to you is:
 
1. where Do you stand on "essence" do you see it as geist? A mid point between mind and spirit? And if so,
    Do you see it as being more moral than material?

2. there seems to be a jump to the assumption of ultimate resolve instead of negation bringing on 
   a the nihlistic "liar" paradox Both are possiblities, why ultimate resolve or "oneness"?

Thanks Ham,
-x


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 2:50 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism


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


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/