[MD] Wanted: A proper foundation

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ian --


Ham said:
"My criticism [of the MoQ] concerns the flawed epistemology that
an aesthetic sensibility such as 'beauty', 'importance', 'quality' or
'value' can stand independently as the ultimate reality."

Ian:
> It can't Ham, but neither can anything else actually be an independent
> foundation, nothing we can name anyway - that's the point. The
> groundlessness takes some getting used to, so we might has well give
> this ineffible thing a non-misleading name, whilst we get on with the
> practicalities of life, a name that doesn't suggest something fixed,
> tangible and objectifiable.

Why can't we name it, even it is ineffable or indefinable?  I have chosen 
the name Essence because it is the absolute and essential source of all 
experienced otherness.  You may prefer to call it God, Creator, or the 
Itself.  The point is not that ultimate reality is "nameless".  It's that a 
groundless universe cannot account for existence.  An ontology that 
postulates Value as the ground or primary source is illogical because it 
presupposes man's existence, if not also "value-preferring" objects.  What 
you end up with is a philosophy with a false epistemology and no 
metaphysical foundation.

Thanks, Ian.

--Ham