[MD] Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

[Ham}
 I would like to think that quantum theory has at least suggested the
answer I stated above.  But I don't expect Science to accept this answer
because of its objectivist methodology.  I have more hope for Philosophy
-- especially for "qualitative" ontologies like the MoQ.  Unfortunately,
the lack of a well-developed metaphysics leaves us hanging in the limbo
of levels and patterns of Quality with no ultimate source, cause, or
purpose.  What we have is a euphemistic "feel-good" scenario that
replaces religion for those who can accept "betterness" as a universal
principle.  If our spirituality demands  something more, there's always
Mysticism.
{x]
Hmmmmm,  what Quantum theory suggests and what Essentialism provides
does seem to go together plus it 
Encompasses SOM and accounts for value patterns. Ham ole bean, I do
believe you have something here.
It certainly deserves closer scrutiny.

[Ham]
What we have is a euphemistic "feel-good" scenario that replaces
religion for those who can accept "betterness" as a universal principle.

[x]
This was my response also, and has been a bone of contention, how close
is "betterness" to "goodness"
And from there to theism? Which was my next question to Micah, since he
was a staunch atheist but
Saw value in "betterness". It seems a contrary position IMO.

Thanks Ham


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 1:17 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Essentialism


G'day Ron --


[Ham]
> "I've been arguing that the S/O reality is essential; we need this 
> division in order to sense otherness as Value."

[x]
> This is why the statement "it cannot be proven that anything exists 
> outside humans" doesn't really fit.

I think you mean "doesn't make sense".  But, you see, Micah knows that
there must be awareness before there is existence.  And awareness always
presupposes a referent object; otherwise, it's nothing.  Therefore, the
question to be resolved is, what is this object?  I have yet to hear
Micah's answer to this question.  For me, since awareness is
pre-intellectual, its object is also pre-intellectual.  I submit that
awareness itself is a
dualism: it is Value-awareness.  And it is Value-awareness that the
intellect converts to objective experience.

In other words, Micah is right in saying that there is no existence
"outside humans", meaning outside of proprietary consciousness.  We
create our own objective reality from the Value which is our finite
sense of Essence.

> As one of the first scientists stated in "what the bleep", quantum 
> physics is a name created by scientists who are totally baffled about 
> the phenomena happening on the atomic level. Thus a "theory of 
> possiblities".
> If parts of matter can pop in and out of reality, then what seperates 
> it from say, a thought?  But as I stated before, I feel they 
> misinterpret what they observe, same as the Columbus analogy, the 
> natives saw the ships, they just didn't know they were "ships" until a

> symbol of authority could distinguish just what the heck they [were] 
> actually seeing, which was a big weird canoe.

If the quantum scientists have proven that reality is fundamentally
dependent on subjective consciousness, then they have indeed answered
the epistemological
question: We create our own reality.  But I don't know any scientist who
accepts this as a literal truth.  Do you?  Most of them are still
working on the premise that man's brain and sensory system respond to
external phenomena that evolve (by cosmic laws of probability) without
him.  Of course, that makes reality -- including man's awareness --
totally objective, which is absurd.

> Man is the measure works in this in as far as the idea of an infinite 
> ultimate awareness that manifests itself in quantum multiplicity and 
> realizes itself aware and separate through negation.
> So it is a "self posited I" and part of an ultimate awareness, only 
> the self posited I is confused by the s/o reality it requires to 
> experience anything and interprets itself as separate.
> If the theory is correct then all matter is a manifestation of this 
> awareness and influences it at every moment.
> Now, what you call this ultimate awarenes is the topic of much debate.

> This is where Hegel fused it with Christianity.
>
> ..Personally I feel quantum theory leaves the window open to all kinds

> of conjecture, and I have my misgivings about quantum theory as a 
> whole.

I would like to think that quantum theory has at least suggested the
answer I stated above.  But I don't expect Science to accept this answer
because of its objectivist methodology.  I have more hope for Philosophy
-- especially for "qualitative" ontologies like the MoQ.  Unfortunately,
the lack of a well-developed metaphysics leaves us hanging in the limbo
of levels and patterns of Quality with no ultimate source, cause, or
purpose.  What we have is a euphemistic "feel-good" scenario that
replaces religion for those who can accept "betterness" as a universal
principle.  If our spirituality demands  something more, there's always
Mysticism.

> I feel things moving to a new level of understanding.

I hope you're right, Ron.

Essentially yours,
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/