[MD] moq thought experiment 1.

[Ham Priday]

Ron:
> Essentialism states that finitude is attributed to value awareness.
> Therefore the finite self is an illusion, even by your own hand.

Finitude is not ultimate reality, to be sure.  But the finite self 
(being-aware) is our reality, illusionary or not.

> Your whole case revolves on Aristotelian logic which MoQ
> diverts from.  This is why things are not matching up.
> You may not level collectivism because it stems from this
> logic, a logic that MoQ transcends.

Funny, I've always thought Essentialism was more Platonic than Aristotelian.
How is Aristotelian logic different than Euclidean logic?  And how can you 
justify a philosophy on the ground that it "transcends" logic?

> Let's speak essentially, Essence is only limited by value sensibility
> which creates the self-other dichotomy.  But self-other is a
> manifestation of the absoluteness of Essence, in fact reality is
> a manifestation of Essence, which is the negate of nothingness.
> Therefore your "Free agent" can not be absolutely free can it?

An agent is part of a system, which means that it can't be "absolutely" 
anything.
Freedom, like everything else in existence, is relative to the source.  But 
within this relational system the individual is an autonomous entity.  It is 
a unique conjunction of awareness and beingness which is the power to create 
and direct its own reality.  Conversely, a "collective mind" is dependent on 
the values and authority of the majority.

> The only absolute is Essence.  Finitude is created by value awareness
> of an absolute Essence which is the negate of nothingness. No absolute
> "free agent" is possible in your metaphysic.

I appreciate your willingness to speak in essentialist terms, but let's use 
them correctly.  Essence is the antithesis of nothingness, which doesn't 
create or negate anything,  Essence negates nothingness which creates 
difference, the primary effect of which is to divide sensibility from 
otherness (the self/other dichotomy).  The essence of sensibility is value, 
from which individuated experience constructs its reality of pluralistic 
being divided by nothingness.  The "agent" is free to shape this reality and 
relate to it as he/she chooses..

> I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle collective.

No, it's a case of the individual calling the "vat" collective.

Thanks for the critique, Ron
Ham