[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe --

On Fri, Oct. 14, 2011 at 3:17 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Mark and all,
>
> The word I am trying to get into the cross hairs on my
> metaphysics scope is "Essence".  In an evolutionary environment
> "Essence" of SOM is indefinable as plurality in a different way
> from DQ/SQ in MOQ.
>
> Essence is indescribable as a noun and indefinable as a level
> in existence in reality.  If I try to conceptualize Essence in levels
> in evolution, it does not produce the same emotion for reality
> as conceptualizing Existence in levels in evolution.  Essence
> does not admit to change when what evolves remains Essence.
> I feel there are no markers for levels in Essence, evolution.
> Yet I have no problem conceptualizing levels in existence for
> evolution.  Where's the beef?  I have a logic problem!

What is it you want to know about Essence?  We haven't talked in some time, 
Joe, so I'm curious to know why you have singled out that particular word to 
name your Source -- especially as it does not relate to levels of existence.

Would it surprise you to learn that I chose Essence BECAUSE it is 
indefinable.  Unlike Being, Substance, God, or Quality, it doesn't lend 
itself to plurality.  It does, however, connote the ultimate nature of 
things or thoughts, which is what one needs to define Reality.  "Essential" 
also connotes "necessary", which resolves the "ex nihilo" parodox of 
metaphysics by suggesting an "uncreated Creator" or primary cause.  Best of 
all, with respect to the MoQ thesis, Essence satisfies the need for a 
transcendent Source of Value.

You yourself complained that "Quality" is an adjective in SOM" and "a noun 
in MOQ", which "gets confusing".  Essence, which is derived from the Latin 
'esse' (to be), is used in the nominative case but does not designate or 
name a particular entity.  This, too, makes it a suitable appellation for 
the "immanent nature of all existents", including the nothingness that 
divides them.

Since you seem to be hung up on the dynamics of differentiation, I would 
like to guide you through my hypothesis, if this interests you.  I should 
warn you in advance, however, that my theory does not rely on "levels of 
evolution" which is a sequence of events in time that is dependent on the 
mode of human experience.  But if you are not wedded to Pirsig's hierarchy 
and are willing to consider an alternative, a dialogue on this important 
topic may prove instructive for both of us.

Thanks, Joe.  I shall await your decision.

Taking words seriously,
Ham