From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 09:51:05 BST
Hi Wim --
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant by "miss something essential". (It
comes from conversing with people like dmb and msh who seem to have an
"attack strategy" for every statement presented.)
The Values page is a commentary I prepare weekly in an attempt to make
Essentialism timely and relevant. Normally it focuses on a controversial
issue, like the Terri Schiavo case, and I patch together a journalist's
column for the editorial box with comments of my own at the top. It was
designed to answer complaints that philosophy must have a practical side,
but it's by no means intended to be a capsule summary of my philosophy.
Essentialism is fully expounded at www.essentialism.net/mech.htm , which can
be accessed from the home page. So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't
answer your questions on this particular essay as fully as I'd be more
inclined to do re: the philosophy itself.
I wrote:
> I stand by my statement that the survival of some aspect of
> propietary awareness heads the list of man's values.
You replied:
> That depends on your (individualistic/collectivistic, among others)
culture
> and your spirituality. For 84% of the Americans this may well be true. In
> Europe the majority would be less, I guess. In the rest of the world and
> especially in South and East-Asia (half of the world population)
> collectivistic thinking and non-Western types of spirituality (e.g.
wanting
> to escape the 'wheel of karma') reduce this attachment to individual
person
> traits to a minority, I guess. Has Harris ever conducted a global poll?
> I your statement that 'the value of survival beyond death is the most
> important value for mankind' meant to be descriptive or normative?
> If factual, it is certainly true for most Americans, but not a good basis
> for philosophy. The majority of Americans also believed their leaders that
> Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to them. No wonder that they would
> like to survive beyond death with such a tendency towards collective
> paranoia. (-:
> If normative, I don't agree, and statistics are no help proving me wrong.
I must admit that I don't think of human beliefs and behavior as either
"normative" or "descriptive". If my philosophy of Essence has any
"practical" value, it will benefit the individual rather than society at
large. Unlike Robert Pirsig, I don't come to philosophy as a cultural
anthropologist. I have a modicum of respect for science and religion,
though I find myself having to clear the hubris of both in order to define
the Essentialist's perspective.
I've only recently come to the conclusion that "surviving death" is a core
philosophical value, so I guess you could categorize it as "descriptive".
It was inspired by happening upon the "LifeNotes" website by an anonymous
author. If you're interested in this idea, you may wish to read his
complete essay at http://ws5.com/nihilism . You raise some interesting
points. I don't know if a universal poll has been conducted on this topic,
or how the results might be affected by, say, a predominantly atheistic
culture. The Al Quaida terrorists represent another anomaly in human belief
systems, inasmuch as they've been conditioned to dismiss much of Western
civilizations's most cherished values, including a deity that shows no
regard for human life.
I also quoted one of the few Ayn Rand passages that I entirely agree with.
That "there is no such thing as a collective brain or a collective thought"
must be a normative proposition, as you suggest. This gets back to the
individual, proprietary awareness that I see as the essential focal point of
differentiation. I can't even conceive of a "collective survival" of death.
Consciousness and intellect are not born collectively, and human death is
not a collective phenomenon. (If you're thinking of death on the
battlefield, or resulting from a tsunami or nuclear blast, then we're not on
the same page.)
> Re my comments on quote 4) from your essay you replied:
> in the end, man in every culture is the autonomous agent.
>
> That seems a normative rather than a descriptive statement to me. How do
you
> support it?
Again, this is what I call an essential principle, and it is supported by my
thesis.
> You continue your comments re 4):
> It is a metaphysical principle of Essentialism that
> reality is anthropocentric and that the individual is the locus of
> existential reality. It is the individual who "believes"; a society
> collectively only reflects the belief of its individual constituents.
You comment:
> Sure, reality (= experience) is anthropocentric and the individual is the
> locus of experience. It is my belief (i.e. I trust) that individual
> experience has a 'divine' core, however, and that experience of 'divine
> guidance', if one is open to experiencing that core, connects everyone and
> everything.
That connection is not "collective" as I see it; it is unification -- the
return of differentiation to its primary Oneness. Again, I suggest that you
read my ontology and get back to me with specific questions.
You said:
> For me the essential factor is transcendence of individual identification.
I do not envision survival of individual identity on the ground that the
result would not be undifferentiated Oneness. I explain this (poorly) in my
thesis as a "valuistic exchange" between the primary Source (Essence) and
the essent (individual man).
Unfortunately, it's the weakest section of my hypothesis.
> The MoQ as I understand it perfectly fits my way of providing meaning for
my
> life-experience.
Good for you, Wim. I won't try to dissuade you then.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Apr 15 2005 - 10:00:08 BST