[MD] logic of Essentialism

[Ham Priday]

Ron, and anyone --

[Ham, previously]:
> "Not-other" avoids attributive description while affording a
> usable symbolic representation for the ineffable that is both
> non-oppositional and non-restrictive.  In my philosophy, it
> makes all difference 'negational' while maintaining the
> absolute intrgrity of Essence.

[Ron]:
> Which is described and supported by the principle of
> explosion.  From contrariety comes infinity.

Excuse me, but don't you have that backwards?  If you agree with me that 
differentiated existence derives from an absolute (i.e., infinite) source, 
then the principle becomes: From Oneness comes Contrariety.

> I think Cusanus supports your theory, but I think because
> of the value awareness barrier it can never be validated.
> Because it can't be validated it supports your theory.

That's a first for me, Ron.  I've never heard of a theory being supported by 
the fact that it cannot be validated.  Is that the explosion principle? 
(Try that out on Krimel, DMB, or Matt.)

And what is the "value awareness barrier"?  Value-awareness defines the 
subjective self, and is of course limited to finite (differentiated) 
perception.  If this is what you mean by "barrier", it's an odd way to 
express a limitation, especially considering that awareness is all we have 
to "know" or "think" with.

But I still haven't the foggiest idea of what you give creditablilty to as a 
belief system.  Are you so into logical analysis that a concept can't stand 
on its own merits?  What we seem to be discussing is the validity of the 
premises rather than the significance of the conclusion.  Leaving aside the 
logic, to what extent, if at all, do you agree with my ontology?

> I think what is described above all refers to value awareness.
> one can not pass it's barrier. I think it is important to realize
> the distinction between value sensibility and thoughts about
> value sensibility. You are in effect placing the origin of the
> universe at the tip of your senses.
>
> I like that idea.

I believe Pirsig said that pre-intellectual experience is the "leading edge 
of reality".  He was referring to the Quality experience.  In my terms, 
"pre-intellectual experience" is value sensibility, i.e., 
being-aware-of-value.  Experience is secondary to this sensibility.  It is 
the intellectual differentiation (objectivization) of value into finite 
reality.  By this process, the world literally becomes "your oyster".  It is 
your core value projected as an external system of relational phenomena that 
are interpreted as things and events occurring in (your) time and space.  In 
a true sense, YOU ARE YOUR REALITY.  I assume you like that idea, too

In the last couple of posts we've taken a giant leap from an absolute source 
to the diversity of experiential existence.  And we haven't even explored 
the negation principle that actualizes difference.  Some indication of your 
affirmation or rejection of this metaphysical ontogeny would be appreciated 
at this juncture.  Based on my previous experience in such discourses, I 
would expect to receive some harsh criticism or, in the very best case, a 
few relevant questions.

What say you, Ron?

Essentially yours (I hope),
Ham