[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[Ham Priday]

On 2/1/10 at 3:09PM David Thomas wrote:


> I saw a PBS documentary last night on a Mennonite Church
> in California that has established a support group for convicted
> pedophiles released from prison. In their group discussions
> and interviews it was apparent they were all struggling to
> overcome personal philosophies very much like the one you
> describe above. All their stories were versions of, If "what I see
> as beautiful" is little girls or boys and I think of myself as "special"
> then these "things" "don't have...values" other than what I
> "construct or create" of what is "good" for me. I just found these
> uncared for, poor, beautiful, waifs without love and I was just
> giving them some.
>
> Yuck,
> Dave

I didn't know I was expected to respond to this bit of editorializing until 
John revealed he was "anxious the hear Ham's reply."

Very simply, the allegation that Essentialism encourages pedophilia or any 
other perversity is nonsense.  I didn't see the PBS documentary, so can only 
question Public Radio's motives for associating pedophilia with a Left Coast 
cult movement.  While the thesis I've developed is a "personal philosophy", 
in no way is it a cultist dogma leading to asocial behavior.  I have no idea 
how Dave could draw such a parallel.  And what connection to Essentialism 
prompts his outpouring of "love for these poor beautiful waifs" who happened 
to be convicted pedophiles?

Indeed, if there's any perversity here, it's in David's mind.  In my recent 
discussions with Mark, we found ourselves in agreement that the perception 
of existential reality is a creation of the individual self.  The values we 
attribute to "things" represent our own sensibility.  This is not unlike 
Pirsig's thesis which replaces subjects and objects with patterns of Quality 
(Value).  Still, Mark expresses some doubt about this ontogeny (he calls his 
agnosticism "humility" for reasons he has yet to explain).  Nevertheless he 
asserts that "it has to be."

Now, I can understand why some here regard this individualistic worldview as 
solipsism.  But even if this were true, how does the solipsist pervert 
society by responding to his own values?  Do we not all have personal tastes 
and preferences that influence our decisions and actions?  Can we eliminate 
immoral or anti-social behavior by believing in a universal Value?

If David can make a credible case that my philosophy of Essence is in some 
way malicious, misanthropic, or incompassionate, I'll be happy to take up 
the challenge.  Until then, I consider his comment disingenuous and totally 
unwarranted.

Essentially speaking,
--Ham