[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[118]

Hi Ham,

Just wanted to be a bit contrary here.  You state that Essence is the ultimate nature of things, but your ontology paints a different picture.  For, in Essentialism, three independent "natures" are required: Essence, Self, and the process of negation.  Now, I suppose Self and Essence can be considered as one thing observing itself, but negation, as a process, is neither.  So, "ultimate nature" is not quite correct, except as a materialist reductionist analogy of building blocks. Subatomic entities are not the nature of matter, since left out are the forces within the matter, and between matter.

As I have tried to convey, The description of "ultimate nature" must be presented as trilogy, otherwise it makes no sense to our logic.  In MoQ, this would be DQ, sq, and IQ.

The three are required for the same reason the position of a point must be expressed through triangulation.  The dimensionality of space cannot be discarded in metaphysics, since it creates our reality.  The only thing worse than two dimensional metaphysics, is one dimensional metaphysics.

Mark

On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:42 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> 
> 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 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html