forumpageNew Page 2
<img src="http://hits.isubmit.com/visitor_tracking.php?uid=2042705" width=0
height=0> Forum Page
Didyou
findthis
presentation
enlightening?
Didyoufindthispresentationenlightening?
Wouldyou
liketo
reviewother
essays of
this
kind?
Your comments and suggestions are invited for The Essentialist's
Forum. The author is
interested in original ideas relating to Essence, Value and
Human Freedom, but will consider only
non-political articles at this time
and reserves the right to edit all material. No comments will be
published without the sender's expressed permission.
Please
limit your submission to a single (typewritten) page and
e-mail to:
hampday1@verizon.net
To leave a
message, fill out the form below and click the "Send Message"
button. If you need to start over, click the "Clear Fields"
button.
FORUM RESPONSES POSTED TO
DATE
From:
Chris M.
Sent: Saturday, 12/10/05 Subject: Empires
Also Die
I'm a History student
in the UK, and found your 'Empires Also Die' article whilst
researching an essay entitled 'Empires contain the seeds of their
own decline'. Needless to say I found the article quite
provocative
and also very relevant to the issues I'm discussing.
I have to say, I
found the piece to be quite a mixed bag - some of the issues
raised were things that I've found myself saying before,
especially the point you made about the declining role of the
family - in the UK it's very much a prevalent problem that, whether
families are single parent or not, a lot of parents are simply not
prepared to take any responsibility for their children anymore,
nor provide them with a basic understanding of how it is
acceptable to behave within society. Needless to say
I'm a little right wing! --CM
I am in total
agreement with your sentiments regarding the failure of parents to
teach responsibility to their children. The tragic consequences
of this neglect are even more apparent here in the U.S. where
nearly half of all children are raised without fathers.
In his book,
Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn says: "Never before in
this country have so many children been voluntarily abandoned by
their fathers. ...Today, the principal cause of fatherlessness is
paternal choice...the rising rate of paternal abandonment".
Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and
alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational
performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality. As my essay points
out, 70% of all prison and reform school inmates come from
fatherless homes.
I've tried to stress
the fact that in a nation, as in a home, there can be no freedom
where individuals shirk personal responsibility. When people
begin to take freedom for granted, they tend to disregard
the moral, fiscal, and educational obligations that are the
backbone of a free society. In a democracy, this leads to a
welfare state that penalizes the successful to support a dependent
underclass, lowering the standards of all concerned and weakening
the security of a free nation. Such a decline is fostered by
an ideology of 'political correctness' which makes it virtually
impossible to identify the problems and take the necessary steps
to correct them.
You needn't be ashamed
of your conservative leaning, Chris. Let's face it: the solution
to this malady is not going to come from the liberal left in the
U.K. or the U.S. --HP
From:
Tony J. Sent: Tuesday, 9/10/02 Subject: To Be or Not to Be...
Impressive start to what promises
to be an exceptionally promising website...!!!!
My
question is this: If the lover and the love object are reunited, is
the lover consciously and eternally aware of this, or is
consciousness and the sense of identity that goes with it
dissipated into a nebulous state of "non being"? Nihilism or
"non-being" only present themselves as powerful alternatives to the
absence of proof of "Continuity of Consciousness."
--TJ
As the first Forum
contributor, you pose an intelligent question that gets right to the
heart of the matter.I have deliberately avoided the use of "being" as a
metaphor for Nature or the material world for reasons that should be
obvious from the thesis. To regard "being", "beingness", or a
"Being" as Reality is a mistake that is largely
responsible for bringing civilization to its present predicament.
For the Essentialist, Reality is not being but Essence. All
things (including individual consciences) have their source in
Essence. Were it not for our illusion of a differentiated
space/time existence, Hamlet's enigma would be self-resolving.
To
answer your question, Love is the perfect consummation of Desire and
Value, whether it applies to Romeo and Juliet or the quest for Truth
and Beauty. We seldom, if ever, even approach this joyful
state in our differentiated existence; but we all sense its reality
and pursue it daily. In the Oneness that Eckhart and other
gnostics refer to, Self and Other are no longer impediments to Love
because the division between them is extinguished. The Soul becomes the Value it has
longed for, since both are unified in Essence.
You
speak of "non-being" as a "dissipated, nebulous" state. But
that is precisely the state in which we find ourselves as
individuated creatures. The dissipation and isolation are a result
of the nothingness that separates us all and prevents us from
realizing Essence as perfect fullness------the timeless Absolute that we can only
conceive as a hypothetical entity extended in space. As to
"continuity of consciousness", the Soul is a far more encompassing
identity than the memory of a single individual in a differentiated
environment. Yes, we must surrender personal identity in order to
gain unconditional fulfillment. Remember, however, that in Essence
nothing is lost.
Consider
this: We can't have the proof and remain free agents at the same
time. However, if you can appreciate the concept of Freedom
outlined here, you'll soon find your doubts vanishing and discover
yourself to be an Essentialist at heart! --HP
From: Tony J. Sent: Thursday, 9/12/02
Subject: To Be or Not to Be... [Continued]
Many thanks for your reply. Yes
it does make sense. My apologies for using the term "Being" for your
"Essence" which as you rightfully suggest can somewhat confuse the
issue. Perhaps the term "Pure Being" may be more akin to your
"Essence"(?) From your views on Essentialism, how would you
therefore describe the process of Death and what do you believe
happens or occurs at this juncture which the individual so
dreads? What (if anything) do you surmise that one "awakens" to? How would you attempt to describe or define it?
--TJ
Tony,
I've obviously had no first hand experience with dying and would not
attempt to describe the experience. You would be better
advised to consult your local library for accounts of those who
claim to have had "near death experiences" (NDE). They appear
to be proliferating as part of our New Age culture that keeps the
book publishers in pocket change these days.
I will
say that death, like birth, is a universal transition of Nature that
should not be feared. Most of the fear stems from the fact
that death represents the Unknown and, frankly, that a lot of
unnecessary fuss is made about it by the survivors.
There is also fear of losing consciousness; yet we do that every
night without undue concern, placing personal identity, cognizant
awareness and physiological functioning under the control of Nature.
Do we dread the possibility that we may not wake up in the morning?
Major surgery subjects the anesthetized body to severe trauma and
pain; thanks to modern drug therapy, we either do not experience the
discomfort or do not remember it. You were a non-entity
for an eternity prior to your being born; what more is there
to dread about returning to that nothingness again?
I don't
mean to belittle the act of dying itself. But I ask you
to consider the meaning implicit in the biblical passage, "Now we
see through a glass, darkly; then we shall see God face-to-face".
While the human brain is an exceptionally efficient coordinator
of information required for the sensory perception and memory of
individual experience, it is even more effective at screening out
anything that would confuse our self-identity by
supplying information beyond the finite present. When we shed
the physical body, we also discard the negated self-identity along
with the awareness limitations of its organic coordinator.
This, also, is normal and logical. As to
what it "feels like" to experience Absolute Essence ["Pure Being"?]
itself, such knowledge is beyond the comprehension of any living
creature. And that is also as it must be for Individual Freedom to
operate as a viable principle. --HP
From: Tony J. Sent: Friday,
9/13/02 Subject: To Be or Not to Be... [Concluded]
As always, many thanks for your
interesting and perceptive insights. I have to agree with your
analogy that a certain amount of insight into the process of sleep
can been useful in contemplating the nature of death. I suppose in
the long run it is always fear of losing the "ego" or one's
self-identity that causes most human beings so much dread and angst,
and yet we have all had the experience of being deeply involved in
something or just lazily walking down the street and
suddenly "awakening" to the fact of where was the "I" during that
moment? ...which doesn't necessarily mean that one was not
aware; it just means that one was not aware of an "I" in
that precise instance.
However as far as the individual
is concerned Essence, Pure Being or existence itself is totally
irrelevant if one is not "Aware that one is aware".
One may as well be a
brick!
Consciousness is such a mysterious and fascinating thing, is it
not.....!
Exactly! Now
you see the problem with "being",
and have discovered (I hope) the core meaning of this whole
presentation. Essence is
more than Being------but it must also encompass Being.
Anything, taken by itself, is a differentiated entity. A brick
exhibits Being; it is an "essent" with no sensibility. An
individual possesses Being in the form of a physical body, but its
consciousness (self-essence) does not. It is a "negate"
without Being, capable only of
perceiving certain
attributes of the brick's "beingness" as a differentiated essent.
In Essence, Being and Sensibility are merged as One. Self and
Other are put behind us: there are no individuated personal
"identities", no insensible entities occupying time and space.
There is only the
perfect all-encompassing Essence.
When we observe the "Universe"
with all that we understand by the term, what do you surmise that
"Essence" is trying to achieve; ie, what do you think is the purpose
of all of this, or is it all just the "playground of the gods" as
some Eastern religions have named it? In the great scheme of things
Martin Heidegger proposed that "existence is neither worth living
nor dying for."
--TJ
Some say
that we exist to "glorify God", and I believe there is
much truth in
that notion. I like
to think of our purpose as providing the "sparkle" in the Gem of
Essence by deriving its Value as free observers, much as the appreciation of
Value adds sparkle to our life-experience. But it is left for
each of us to discover the meaning of our own existence. --HP