[MD] Value and the Individual

[Ham Priday]

 [Arlkrime]:
> Our mind is still trying to fathom how we "intuit" our cosmic
> purpose.  But yet all experience is intellectual.
> But yet intellect "gets in the way" of this intuition.
> But yet there is no such thing as pre-intellectual experience.

[DM]:
>Yep, that's the special level of confusion only Ham seems
> to reach, I think we have uncovered his cosmic purpose!

You two (three?) have not been paying attention.  Your confusion stems from 
a misinterpretation of my terms.

On 4/4 I explained to Ron that I acknowledge proprietary awareness in a pure 
sense as Sensibility, not "experience" which is intellectually 
differentiated.  Because everything in existence is divided by nothingness, 
including the subject, sensibility takes a binary form: Value/sensibility. 
I submit that value-sensibility is the essence of man's existence.  Hence, 
there is nothing inconsistent about my statement.

Moreover, since the attributes of existence are intellectualized "products" 
of value-sensibility, experience does not reveal cosmic purpose.  This can 
only be conceived intuitively--by the introspective development of a 
logically plausible ontology that takes into account the fact that 
experiential truth is relative and knowledge is only an intellectual 
paradigm.

Essentialism is such a theory.  It posits man as the locus of his universe 
and vindicates the inaccessibility of Absolute Truth as consistent with the 
principle of Individual Freedom.  Unlike the MoQ, Essentialism can 
acknowledge existence as a subject/object reality because it is founded on 
an undifferentiated source.

Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to clarify my position.

--Ham