[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Tuukka Virtaperko]

Ham,
the link you supplied was broken, so I went to 
http://www.essentialism.net/mechanic

The background image makes the text difficult to read.

    You say: *"Since metaphysical truth must hold for "all possible
    worlds", the search is necessarily subjective in approach;"*
    **

*
*I agree with the conclusion, but it does not follow from the premise.

At this point I should maybe remark I find this essentialism thing to be 
doomed, because the source you are talking about will almost certainly 
end up to be a nonrelativizably used predicate. But I can't know it 
before I've read a lot of this. A great, big lot... sigh.

    You say: *Cupping the delicate blossom in my hand, I study the
    flower's crimson petals; but the color, shape and texture that I am
    experiencing are not attributes of the rose itself but of my visual
    and tactile sensory faculties.  The familiar sweet fragrance I sense
    in its presence is, in actuality, a chemical alteration between my
    olfactory nerve endings that recalls past encounters with roses from
    my memory.  I stoop to pluck the flower but am stopped by the
    prickly thorns of its stem; the pain I feel---a result of
    the traumatized condition of the nerves in my fingertips when the
    skin is pierced---is a further reminder that, except for the
    presumed being of this living plant before me, all of its
    identifiable attributes are actually properties of my organic
    sensibility.  Thus, the flower whose existence I so confidently and
    without hesitation reported a moment ago on analysis turns out to be
    the mere spectre of a rose**---**a concoction of my own proprietary
    awareness.  I do not even know for a certainty that what I've called
    a rose has a being of its own that is distinct from my cognizance of
    it!*


OLD stuff! *sigh* Seems like you are approaching a systematic way of 
separating the reference and the referent, but not quite getting there. 
Or am I being too pessimistic?

Anyway, in that snippet above you explain for yourself the difference 
between romantic and classical quality. Well, not really, but the 
visions you see and the pain you feel are romantic, and the conceptual 
side, including the entire text as it is, is classical.

    *Or, for that matter, /how do we know that the physical world exists
    at all?/*


Nnnooooo.... not this again...
*
*

    *The word "essence", from the Latin /esse///[to be], is commonly
    used to reference the significance or core meaning of a proposition,
    as well as the value or substantive nature of a thing.  Essence is
    not /being/, which is subtended by dimensional nothingness, nor is
    it /conscious/ awareness, which presupposes an objective referent;
    rather, it is the absolute unity which encompasses all being and
    sensibility as the /antithesis of existential nothingness/.  The
    descriptive form "essential" connotes what is * /*indispensable*/*in
    any context.  Both terms have had a long and convoluted past in the
    history of philosophical dialogue.  Much of the difficulty might
    have been avoided had philosophers fully understood the *
    /*experiential*/*component of the reality they were attempting to
    define.  In light of recent findings by Professor Wheeler and other
    cosmologists, philosophers are no longer pariahs for denouncing as
    "problematic" any theory of reality that ignores proprietary
    sensibility or that posits Being as the primary cause.*
    **

*


*Cool, a nonrelativizably used predicate. "Essence". It's okay, I just 
don't *like* them.

I'm just being a dick while reading this. I think this is boring. It's 
okay if it doesn't bore someone else.

I was trying to do this kind of stuff too, say, four years ago. I had 
this funny concept of "tautological existence", similar to your 
"essence". Langan did the exact same mistake with his "supertautology". 
But it can't be *proven* a mistake. If someone *likes* to create that 
kind of concepts, then, good luck and Godspeed!

Best wishes,
Tuukka