[MD] The first cut.

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Ham and all,

You use a word "essence" which is not logical.  No logic or reality can
follow "essence".  It is a stand alone word defining to be (esse) and being
(ens) different parts of speech yes/no and the beat goes on!.

In a DQ/SQ format for metaphysics you need a word which looks three ways
"existence": EX (out of) Iste (that) ens (being) so that the description of
an origin for reality accepts modifiers:  active, passive, or neutral.

Once those three elements are embodied in metaphysics like "existence", then
a metaphysical discussion can define reality more precisely, and logic is
served.  Evolution, embodying each of the forces, cannot manifest only as
active or passive "essence"!

Joe 


On 1/24/12 10:55 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

> The capacity to define is what I call Sensibility; and because it embraces
> empirical, emotional, and intellectual values, I refer to it as
> "value-sensibility" and consider it the essence of man's selfness.  So that,
> instead of describing Value (i.e., DQ) as something indefinable that we
> "latch onto" as "patterns and levels", I explain experience as the
> objectivization of Value by the sensible "agent" or self.
> 
> Thus, if Selfness=Individuated Sensibility, the objects of experience
> (finitude) represent "otherness", or what the sensible agent is _not_.  This
> idea has its parallel in Cusa's theorem that the First Principle (i.e., God)
> is Not-Other.  It offers an epistemology that simplifies conscious awareness
> by avoiding the analytical problems that invariably arise when we try to
> express subjects and objects as a metaphysical construct of undifferentiated
> Quality.
> 
> I hope this analysis shares some of your thinking, or at least points in a
> similar direction, Joe.  If so, perhaps we can once again have a productive
> dialogue.