Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 19:15:00 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ"

    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?

    DM: I refer to your posts, not read the whole theses yet.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 9:16 AM
    Subject: Re: RE; MD the individual in the MOQ

    >
    > 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
    >

    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 - 20:05:44 BST