[MD] The Radical Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron [Krimel mentioned] --

I see you've discovered Richard Schain.  I found his essay a couple of years 
ago and archived it on my website at 
www.essentialism.net/RadicalMetaphysics.htm.
The statement that particularly appeals to me is this paragraph, which 
should have been posted under "the subjective" thread:

"'Truth is subjectivity' means that the essential feature in the life of an 
individual is his valuation of his interior self, i.e. his subjective self. 
There is no greater tragedy than the failure of an individual to realize 
this value.  What hinders this development, however, is the modern view that 
there is no such thing as the self, that there is only a complex arrangement 
of synapses and neurons in the brain, giving rise to the illusion of self. 
Without a belief in the metaphysical self, humans are at the mercy of their 
environment, which in the present age fares little for the development of an 
interior self.  Only a radical metaphysics will save the individual from 
drowning in the swamps of the materialist dogmas of contemporary society. 
There is a pressing necessity for metaphysics for any individual in today's 
world who has respect for himself as an independent being."

Ron, you've made a number of notable points in your discussion with Krimel 
which have earned my enthusiastic support.  However, I feel obliged to point 
out that the Wikipedia write-up on Essence is listed as "incomplete, and 
needing references".  It also does not define the term as I have conceived 
it.  Following is how you adapted it for your 8/13 post on "What is SOM?".

"In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an 
object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, 
and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with 
accident: a property that the object or substance has contingently, without 
which the substance can still retain its identity. The concept originates 
with Aristotle, who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai, literally 'the 
what it was to be', or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti, literally 
'the what it is.'  In the history of western thought, essence has often 
served as a vehicle for doctrines that tend to individuate different forms 
of existence as well as different identity conditions for objects and 
properties; in this eminently logical meaning, the concept has given a 
strong theoretical and common-sense basis to a whole family of logical 
theories."

If I may simplify the metaphysical drift of this article with the MoQ in 
mind ...
The idealist Plato surmised that experienced objects were "essentially" 
ideas.  His protégé Aristotle, having a more scientific bent, defined the 
term "essence" as the "true nature" of a thing.  The word "necessity" in 
your second line is critical, and IMO should have replaced "accident" in the 
sentence that begins: "Essence is contrasted with...".  That an object has 
the "necessity" to exist means that it cannot bring itself into being but 
exists by the power of something else.  In other words, Aristotle's notion 
that "things have essences" might support the quantum theory of energy and 
mass (following the causal "necessity" of natural laws), but it doesn't 
support the concept of a fundamental source (i.e., that which is independent 
of necessity but creates by "intent").  This is how I view Essence whose 
"power to negate" actualizes relational existence.

Actually, the medieval theologian Eckhart expressed Essence best as 
'istigheit", which Raymond Blackney has translated from the German as 
"is-ness" in the passage "God's is-ness is my is-ness."  That concept, 
together with Cusa's theory of the "not-other", gives the philosopher a 
handle on the ineffable source which is otherwise indefinable.  Had I the 
credentials to do so, I would amend Wikipedia's article to include such an 
interpretation under the philosophy of Essentialism.

Your thoughts have been a continuing source of guidance for me, Ron.  I 
value them all the more because you've maintained a certain "neutrality" 
toward Essentialism which makes your comments credible to the Pirsigians.

Thanks, and best regards,
Ham