From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 00:59:47 BST
I don't like source=essence
much prefer DQ=source
a source is like a fontor fount, it pours,
it gives, you can have no idea what is going
to emerge, its not worthy trying to find the essence
of the source, you cannot get a handle on it,
its a big bang that just keeps on banging
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: <hampday@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: MD Essentialist and anti-essentialist
>
>
> Scott, Platt, Erin, and all --
>
> Under a new subject heading, Scott has explained for Platt
> and me what "the usual use" of the term essentialist means:
>
>> The usual use of "essentialist" in philosophy is to claim the reality of
> the
>> essence of things beyond the transitory appearance ("existence") of
> things.
>> It is, as far as I can tell, the same universalist stand as opposed to
>> the
>> nominalist: horses are horses because they have partake in horseness,
> which
>> exists (if one is an essentialist) in addition to the particular horses.
>> A
>> Platonic Form, in short, which a nominalist or anti-essentialist (same
>> thing, as far as I can see) will call "just" a word or concept.
>
> I think this correctly defines the general meaning since the early Greek
> philosophers. Plato used the word "essence" in an epistemological way, to
> distinguish "true" reality from what is perceived. However, Aristotle
> went
> a step further and applied "essence" to the one common characteristic
> that
> all things belonging to a particular category have in common. Man is
> "rational", for example, because reason is man's essence. I have problems
> with Aristotelian ontology because it implies that intellectually
> differentiated categories, such as various animal species, are each
> essentially real. This is the scientific materialist (or nominalist)
> view,
> to which I believe Mr. Pirsig's philosophy stands opposed. Considered in
> that context, I believe Scott is right in concluding that the MoQ is
> generally "essentialist".
>
> Since I "own" this term, in the sense that I pay for running the only
> philosophical website with Essentialist('s) as a name, I have a stake in
> its
> usage and meaning with respect to my Philosophy of Essence. Please don't
> get me wrong; I'm delighted and flattered that these labels have come up
> spontaneously in a respected philosophy forum and encourage their use. (I
> say "spontaneously" because I doubt that these terms arose in Erin's or
> Scott's mind through any influence of mine.) However, if you are going to
> use this terminology, I think you should be aware of its epistemology, its
> pitfalls, and its current usage in other fields, a few of which border on
> philosophy.
>
> Although "essence" has had special meaning for me since the '60s, I did a
> good bit of research on the implied meaning of "Essentialism" before
> deciding to adopt it for an unpublished thesis, and more recently for my
> website. Some of that research may be evident in the opening section of
> the
> thesis, where I try to establish "proprietary rights", so to speak:
>
> "I decided to call this value-based essence philosophy 'Essentialism' back
> in the mid-1960s, a decade at least before the term began to identify a
> slew
> of polemical movements that have little if anything to do with
> metaphysical
> Essence and, in fact, are more derivative of existentialist thinking.
> Most
> of the definitions that have since found their way into college outline
> books and onto the Internet are slanted toward the idea that 'some things
> have essences' which, if removed, would make their existence impossible.
> Curiously, Runes' comprehensive Dictionary of Philosophy still does not
> include Essentialism, but it does provide this 'scholastic definition' for
> Essence: 'The essence of a thing is its nature considered independently of
> its existence. Also, non-existent things and those which cannot exist at
> all have a proper essence. ...It is doubtful whether we can give of any
> thing a truly essential definition with the one exception of man: man is a
> rational animal.' ...
>
> "Possibly the clearest definition for this philosophy was offered by
> gay/lesbian rights advocate Diana Fuss, who wrote: 'Essentialism is most
> commonly understood as a belief in the real, true essence of things, the
> invariable and fixed properties which define the 'whatness' of a given
> entity.' [Essentially Speaking, 1989]
>
> A quick Google check for "Essence" will turn up a prominent black
> magazine,
> several perfume manufacturers (including a floral essence consortium), a
> media communications group, a reference source on Jainism, and Feuerbach's
> "Essence of Christianity", only the latter two connecting with philosophy.
> Usage of "Essentialist" is even more diverse. There are 736 "essentialist
> explanations" of the form "Language X is essentially language Y under
> conditions Z", for instance; there is the essentialist argument (in
> psychology) that homosexuality is biologically determined; there is a
> political "gender movement" that maintains that it's essentialist to say
> "Sexism serves a role in society, which is working okay most of the time
> for
> most people", but it's not essentialist (anti-essentialist?) to say
> "Sexism
> exists, therefore most women will experience some kind of sexism in their
> lives at some point". The term also appears in treatises on art and
> heuristics with meanings I've been unable to fathom.
>
> Insofar as these terms involve philosophy and metaphysics, my major
> concern
> is that Essentialist be identified with belief in a primary, transcendant
> source, whether this source is called Essence, Quality, Value, Oneness, or
> God. I suppose "Anti-essentialist" (a designation I have not previously
> seen) would conversely, then, identify the denial or rejection of such a
> source. If you folks can agree to that connotation, you'll have no
> problem
> with me -- other than the usual philosophical ones, of course -- and I
> will
> be following the discussion with keen interest, as well as jumping in to
> help clarify the relevant issues.
>
> Thanks for this consideration.
>
> 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 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 02:13:39 BST