Re: MD RE: Antiessentialism/essentialism

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Mon Aug 29 2005 - 22:28:02 BST

  • Next message: Arlo J. Bensinger: "Re: MD Marriages: To Beget or Not to Beget"
  • Next message: jc: "MD Rabbi's Gift"
  • Next message: jc: "Re: MD The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists"

    Matt, Erin, et al,

    Matt said:
    I do think the spirit of Pirsig's writings places him as an
    antiessentialist, though not in Scott's recently formulated terms. In
    Fish's terms, Scott's essentialist and antiessentialist both appear as
    essentialists, while the one who wants to eshew those terms (the one saying
    yes, no, neither, both) is the antiessentialist. I think Pirsig is an
    antiessentialist most of the time, but slips into some essentialistic
    mutterings from time to time.

    Scott says:
    The fourth horn of the tetralemma (one cannot say "neither") is saying that
    one *should not* eschew the terms, as a pragmatist wants to. Why not, you
    ask? Because if one wants to think about how things hang together, they will
    inevitably resurface, albeit using other words. So what I have been pointing
    out is that in the MOQ, the words "essence" and "universal" have resurfaced
    as "static pattern of value". The only way the MOQ could be truly
    antiessentialist is to deny that there is value at all levels. But this, of
    course, would just turn it into (possibly non-reductive) materialism, and it
    would no longer be the MOQ. Saying that value is real at the inorganic level
    is the camel's nose under the tent. The MOQ antiessentialists are trying to
    deny the rest of the camel (consciousness and intellect at all levels) while
    keeping the nose.

    Materialism (non-reductive or otherwise) does not see a resurfacing of
    "essence" simply because it tries to ignore that consciousness and intellect
    are all about the play between essence and existence, and cannot have arisen
    in a world without essences. What the tetralemma says is that it is
    meaningless to talk about inherently self-existent essences -- they only
    exist as essences because of existents, but it is also meaningless to talk
    about inherently self-existent existents -- they only exist (in a valued
    way) because of essences. Contradictory identity. The materialist assumes
    that before there were humans, there were existents without essences. The
    MOQ cannot make that assumption without ceasing to be the MOQ.

    - Scott

    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 : Tue Aug 30 2005 - 02:09:01 BST