[MD] Collective intelligence

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse --

> You're entitled to your point of view, even if I don't share
> it. You're also welcome to stay on moq_discuss and continue
> to share in the conversations. Having a different world view
> doesn't exclude you from this group and I hope you stick around.

Thanks, Horse.  Your generosity confirms my faith in the intellectual 
integrity of this forum and its ability to rise above the personal acrimony 
that can develop when strongly held opinions clash.

> Many aspects of Essentialism and the MoQ are severely at
> odds with each other. That both recognise Quality/Value in
> no way makes for convergence in any worthwhile way as it/they
> are viewed in almost opposing ways. In the MoQ Quality is
> fundamental reality but appears to be little more than one
> of a number of human attributes in Essentialism.

I'll respect your wish not to argue the point.  But let me say that 
recognizing the primacy of Quality/Value is more than coincidence and no 
small step for a postmodern philosopher.  I do not wish to demean this 
concept, particularly since it was what drew me to the MoQ in the first 
place.  Actually, Value is fundamental to the essentialist's concept of 
existence, rather than just a "human attribute"; so there is more 
commonality than might appear in a superficial comparison of the two 
philosophies.  I still hope to demonstrate that "convergence" is possible 
when empirical reality is understood as an awareness/otherness dichotomy, 
the contingents of which are both "value-deficient".

[I'm also sending a note to you and Ron in response to a post I didn't catch 
but in which I seem to have been misquoted.]

Thanks, again, for your statement of encouragement, Horse.  In return, I 
shall try to live up to the MD charter, despite my divergent views, by 
continuing to gently nudge (not shove) this august group toward a more 
expanded metaphysical perspective.

Essentially yours,
Ham