From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 09:16:20 BST
Ham Priday to David Morey
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004, 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ
You said:
> we are certainly not very interested in how
> big you ego is, I am embarrassed for you,
> in my opinion from your posts you have
> yet to grasp the MOQ only then could
> we examine if you have found any contradictions
> or improvements.
I'm not aware that I've flaunted my ego at anyone in this forum, hence there
is no need to be "embarrassed" for me.
Also, I feel I've now learned enough about the MOQ to grasp its major
contradictions with Essentialism.
> haven't seen any yet though. Maybe you are
> not expresing yourself very well. Pirsig
> explains MOQ in relation to his SOM analysis
> of the entire history of western philosophy.
> We all know where MOQ diverges from SOM,
> explain yourself in relation to the tradition &
> let us work out how it differs to the MOQ, we
> have no shortage of analytical skiils here
Dave, despite my inflated ego, I don't presume the right to impose my entire
thesis on another philosopher's web site. Anyone wishing to read it can do
so simply by going to www.essentialism.net. The fact that you and your
colleagues have the analytical skills to compare my philosophy with MOQ and
other perspectives is precisely the reason I'm here. I would hope that the
questions and exchanges in these postings would be sufficient to discern the
central ideas of Essentialism and make whatever comparisons are useful.
The Philosophy of Essence was not developed to "fit" a specific philosophic
category, and I don't see the need for "classifying" it. Quite frankly, I
don't know exactly what dialectical school best characterizes my theories.
Essentialism has an eclectic foundation that borrows from the idealism of
the Greeks, the metaphysical insights of Plotinus and Eckhart, and the
cosmological concepts of contemporary physicists. Since Essentialism posits
reality from the perspective of the individual, I haven't attempted to
present it in a socio-cultural context, as Pirsig has done via his novels.
It may be a shortcoming on my part, but I'd prefer that the reader make this
connection for himself (This decision is consistent with my belief in Free
Will.)
In reply to Mark's question as to what I thought was "unique" about my
philosophy, I said:
> I think the immanency concept is unique in that it makes Essence
> accessible to man (as Value). The notion of a (totally) subjective
> essence probably originated with Plotinus, but Aristotle and his followers
> had posited "essence" as specific "entity types" in an objective reality,
> which is where the positivists still search for it today.
In additon, the (negational) Creation hypothesis and the principle of
Individual Freedom (with its relation to Value) are original conceptions
which may be viewed as adding to its uniqueness. (I find it interesting that
no one in this group has yet challenged these concepts.)
If you have read my complete thesis without finding anything new or
worthwhile in it, then what can I tell you, except that I'm disappointed?
Essentially yours,
Ham
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 02 2004 - 09:33:07 BST