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 for this page and reserves
the right to edit all material. No
comments will be published
without the sender's expressed permission.
Please limit your submission to three paragraphs (maximum)
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.
Name:
E-mail address:
Message subject:
My message:
FORUM RESPONSES POSTED TO
DATE
From: Nadir A. Sent: Sunday,
9/14/08 Subject: Postmodern Thinking
Why do postmodernist thinkers reject essentialism? I
mean, there might be reasonable grounds to assail essentialism,
but some reasons are specific for the postmodernist rejection of
essentialism. This might be because the postmodern view as a whole
cannot coexist with essentialism. I wish to know why is
postmodernism not compatible with essentialism?
--NA
Indeed, there is no logical reason to reject
Essentialism, whether one is a postmodernist, an idealist, or an
existentialist. The term "postmodern" itself is somewhat ambiguous
in interpretation. Generally it refers to cultural influences
beginning in the middle of the last century. I think it is clear
that the technological achievements of our modern era,
particularly in the Western World, have persuaded academics and
intellectuals that scientific objectivism is the only valid
approach to knowledge. This has led to a nihilistic view of
reality where intuitive concepts, spirituality, and idealistic
beliefs are regarded as part of the "mythos of man's evolution"
prior to his enlightenment by scientific understanding.
There is also much confusion as to what "essence"
means. The Platonic idea was that "things have essences" which
define their "reality". Aristotle took this to mean that truth was
to be found in an exploration of the substantive world, an
approach that culminated in the methodology of Science. Yet,
idealism has persisted in the arts, in philosophy, and to a lesser
degree in the sciences. For example, cognitive scientist
Donald Hoffman proposed that the "stuff" of reality is
Consciousness, a cosmology that was formalized in Franklin-Merrell
Wolf's philosophy of "The One Nonderivative Reality". More
recently cultist philosopher Robert Pirsig [ZEN and the Art of
Motorcyle Maintenance, LILA] has popularized the view that
subject/object reality is a hierarchy of Quality levels and
patterns.
My cosmology of Essence is
non-qualitative and is founded on Cusa's principle of the
"not-other". I see man as the "agent of value" in existence, but
do not consider ultimate reality (Essence) an existent. Instead, I
define Essence as the unitary (undivided), timeless and immutable
source of all difference. Although I have no quarrel with Science
as a pragmatic tool for enhancing man's physical environment, in a
metaphysical sense Essentialism is directly opposed
to Existentialism which is the basis of scientific
objectivism.
--HP
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