[MD] logic of Essentialism

[Ron Kulp]

[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.

Ham:
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.

Ron:
does not the absolute of essence rest on "not-other'?

Ron prev:
> 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.

Ham:
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.)

Ron:
If the theory is that ultimate reality may not be comprehended then the
fact that it may not be absolutely validated supports your theory does
it not?

Ham:
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.

Ron:
Exactly, awareness is all we have to "know' or "think" with. We may not
project past it without projecting modulations of it.

Ham:
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?

Ron:
To me, the validity of the premises IS the significance of the
conclusion.
Or else you may as well make things up simply for the use to comfort
people.

Ham:

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.

Ron:
The negation principle is the one I've been seeing as giving you the
problem,
it rests everything on analytics which we have just shown applies to the
understanding of value awareness. if it is applied in this way, you have
a strong logical chain.

What I am attempting to do is point out how your ontology can be
explained in terms that will be understood, make logical sense
and arrive at a conclusion that supports itself by it's own line of
reasoning.

I'm not sure I support all your ideas Ham, but I do support you.