[MD] Consciousness a la Ham

[Ham Priday]

Arlo said to Ham:
> Your little jabs about my "inability to understand" are funny, but
> I'll be open to anyone else in this forum who can explain to me
> how what you give are "answers" to my questions.

 dmb says:
> Right. I think Ham has to entertain the idea that "your" inability to
> understand is completely normal. I don't understand either and don't
> see how anybody could simply because it makes no sense. I don't
> believe Ham understands it either. His use of Eckhart, for example,
> should open up some understanding of the philosophical mysticism
> and the Buddhist concepts that are relevant to the MOQ but he
> blows right past that and turns Eckhart into an essentialist. And
> there's another thing. Ham has brought essentialism to the MOQ,
> which is vigorously anti-essentialist.

Why is the MoQ vigorously anti-essentialist?  Maybe you can explain that to 
me.

If essence is the ultimate reality that philosophers since Plato have 
searched for, by what postmodern hubris is its rejection praised?  Is not 
Quality the very essence of reality for MoQists?  How can you say that a 
philosophy based on Quality is anti-essentialist?

dmb continues:
> Apparently, Ham feels personally persecuted by the fact that very few
> MOQers are willing to buy his Essentialism. But actually, it only stands
> to reason that a MOQer would reject such a thing. The most central
> and often repeated claims are wildly at odds with the MOQ.  It's
> positively medieval. It's crypto-theological essentialism. It's absolutist
> and totalitarian and yet it doesn't add up or have any basis in empirical
> reality. It's everything a MOQer doesn't like.  If Ham wants to swim
> upstream against all that, he's brave. But, sadly, I don't think he
> understands how or why the MOQ is so very incompatible with
>what he's doing.

No, I don't understand this.  Nor do I see how Essentialism is "everything a 
MOQer doesn't like."  "At odds with"?, yes.  Absolutist"?, possibly. 
"Totalitarian"?, ridiculous.  By no stretch of the imagination can you 
justify that label.  As for "not having any basis in empirical reality", I 
would submit that Essence has at least as much empirical relevance as 
Quality does, plus a metaphysical foundation that the MoQ lacks.

> Sorry, Ham.
> I'm might be wrong but at least I'm sincere.

You and Arlo may be "sincere" in criticizing a philosophy that you don't 
understand and reject out of hand.  But such professed humility doesn't 
credit either of you.

--Ham