[MD] Hoy stoves and those who sit on them

[Ham Priday]

Joe and Andre --


Joe to Ham and all:
> Clarity is certainly a noble goal.  I was pondering the meaning
> of words in an evolutionary hierarchy.  ESSENCE was a
> word that changed in meaning to INDIVIDUALITY, in an
> evolutionary setting.  I was dumb-founded.  I had no hint
> that a metaphysics of ESSENCE would require the study of
> INDIVDUALITY to logically reveal what it means in evolution.
> What does ESSENCE mean in the absence of evolution?
> Whatever I want it to mean, not this, not that.

To borrow from your mystic koan, Essence is indeed  "not this, not that." 
And inasmuch as "what you want it to mean" is either this or that, Essence 
is "not that" either.  In short, Essence is indescribable, which is the 
lesson of this koan.

But your epiphany concerning Essence vs. Individuality was worth having, 
because it demonstrates that only through the individual agent can the 
logic--and Value--of Essence be realized.  This is of course the basic 
premise of the essentialist ontology.

Andre:
> Hey Joe. We accept the theory of evolution because it is a high quality
> idea with much explanatory power. In the presence of evolution essence
> makes no sense. Cannot exist. Essence means that something exists
> inherently, all by itself, from itself, of itself... i.e. independently,
> individually, (like self-contained little isolated islands),
>
> This flies in the face of the 'scientifically' supported idea of evolution
> which, in Buddhist terminology is supported with the idea of
> 'co-dependent arising'. Nothing arises independently or individually.
> In other words, all is related and co-dependent. This idea is supported
> by the DQ/SQ of the MoQ. (Remember Pirsig's amendment to the
> Descartes statement?)

I'm glad to see you supporting the metaphysical axiom 'ex nihilo, nihil 
fit', which is the logical argument for the primary source.  However, I 
would edit your second sentence to read: "in the CONTEXT of evolution 
Essence makes no sense."  If you read my thesis you will note that nowhere 
have I asserted that Essence "exists".  By no logic does this mean that 
there is no Essence.  Rather, it means that if Essence is 'a priori', and 
existence is time/space phenomena, then it is illogical to say that Essence 
exists.  Essence is the Absolute Source of differentiated finitude, not an 
existent.

You are also correct in stressing that nothing arises independently (i.e., 
by its own power), and that everything in existence is related and 
co-dependent.  All except the knower, that is. The sensible subject of 
existence is neither an existent nor Essence.  The proper term for the 
nature of individuated sensibility is "essent".  It appears in the writings 
of Heidegger and Sartre, and its etymology is explained in Dictionary.com as 
follows: "Middle English essencia and French essence, both from Latin 
essentia, from esse, to be, from the presumed present participle *essens, 
*essent -- (on the model of differentia, difference, from differens, 
different)."

Essentially speaking,
Ham