[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Ham Priday]

Hi, there, Joe --

> Hi Ham and all,
>
>> Essence is the uncreated Absolute Source of diversity.
>
> What observation can help me describe a reality for
> this statement?  I presume that it is an article of Faith.

Since only empirical reality can be described, experiential existence is the
"observation" that describes Essence.  Absolute Essence itself is 
non-empirical and, thus, indescribable.  This is my conviction based, not on 
"faith", but
on the logic that nothing can come from nothing and that only an "uncreated"
source avoids the infinite regression of prior causes.

> Do you propose that as sentient beings we have common
> essences?  As far as I know Essence is a term of logic
> given to an abstraction by the intellect in Aristotle's theory
> of knowledge.

Aristotle posited things as 'essences', but there is only one Essence, as
Plotinus surmised, and anything else is a derivative of Essence by negation. 
I'm not aware of Essence as a logical term, but if the Primary Source is an
"abstraction" to you, I suppose it fills the bill.

> SOM's theory of knowledge creates intentional existence
> for Essence.  There is no reality to essence, only the
> conceptual logical environment in SOM.

I'm not sure what you mean by "intentional" existence, unless you are
referring to the cognitive agent (man) who is its decision-maker.  And how
can you say "there is no reality to Essence" when it is the ultimate Source
of existence?

> Positing Essence as an uncreated Absolute Source of diversity
> denies individual accountability.

How so?  Where would the individual be if there were no Essence to create 
him?  How could there be accountability without an agent to realize Value?

> The diversity of indefinable individuality I find acceptable.  My
> individuality is differently sourced than yours.  I can not reject
> my indefinable individuality in logical discourse.  Communication
> requires common experiences.  I don't think essence is a
> common experience.

What's the difference between "indefinable individuality" and an
"indefinable Creator" when it comes to communication?  Essence may not be 
directly experienced, but it is the common denominator of all sensibility.

> MOQ proposes a different theory for knowledge, evolution,
> as a metaphysical premise for diversity.  I conjecture that MOQ
> accepts evolutionary reality as levels in existence.  I find that
> idea exciting.

However "exciting" evolution may be to you, it is not "metaphysical" but 
experiential.  We experience a pluralistic three-dimensional universe 
unfolding over time and call the process evolution.  This is is an empirical 
fact of common knowledge.  There is nothing metaphysical about it.

Are you not also excited about the possibility of understanding the true 
nature of Reality, how the world of your experience is created, and why you 
are here?  Only metaphysics can explain that.  The fact that metaphysical 
theories can't be proved makes this branch of philosophy even more exciting 
for me.

Unless you've lost your zeal for logical criticism, this should make you 
want to challenge me.

Essentially speaking,
Ham