I hope my comments below will satisfactorily answer the questions in both of
your 4/26 posts.
> but our theories coincide in that subjective quality is more
> fundamental than objective quality. Idealism seems to be
> coming back to fashion anyhow... well, I don't care about
> that, but I couldn't make the SOQ any other way.
Subjective "quality" (awareness) is "more fundamental" because sensibility
and value are both "essential", that is, derived from Essence, whereas
objective quality (existential reality) is an intellectual construction of
> Both your essentialism and my SOQ seem to start with the following:
> --initial absence of metaphysical realism, that is, belief in an
> external world that consists of quarks and leptons and such
> --a variant of idealism as the fundamental essence
> --initial emphasis on the subjective
> --the theory begins with what could perhaps even be called a mild form of
> solipsism, but advances out of that
I don't know what you mean by "metaphysical realism". If it's belief in the
reality of a physical universe of quantum particles ordered by the laws of
cause-and-effect, I would it Objectivism or Naturalism. Also, there can be
no solipsism without experiential awareness, and that comes from one's
sensibility to Value.
[Tuukka following Marsha's example and quoting from Nagarjuna]:
1. It makes no sense to say that essence arises from causes and
conditions. If essence were caused or conditioned, it would not
2. Essence cannot be created or otherwise come to be. Essence is not
artificial, nor does it depend on another.
3. If there are essences, then there are real differences between things
Correct. Essence neither "arises" nor is "created" and is free of all
4. Are there entities without essences? Then there are no real
differences between them . . . .
Entities (i.e., finite objects) are an experiential reduction of Essence
which appear as a result of the nothingness that separates and delineates
5. If we cannot find an entity with an essence, that does not prove the
non-existence of such entities. Some say that an entity that changes is
The confusion here is semantic. If "existence" is defined as entities
experienced in space/time, then Essence does not exist, per se. Since it
would be foolish to say that things don't exist, I refer to two realities --
objective and metaphysical, the latter encompassing all difference and
6. Those who think in terms of essences and real differences, and who
cannot recognize entities without essences, do not grasp the truth
taught by the Buddha.
Probably correct. In that sense, Buddha was an essentialist.
7. The Buddha . . . counseled against saying "it is" and "it is not."
8. If only entities with essences [really] exist, then there is no
non-existence, nor can anything change.
9. Some will say, "If there are no essences, what is there to change?"
We reply, "If there are essences, what is there to change?"
10. To say "it is" is to be attached to essentialism. To say "it is not"
is to lapse into nihilism. Therefore, judgments of "it is" or "it is
not" are not made by the wise.
11. "An entity with an essence cannot not-exist." This is essentialism.
"It existed before, but now it doesn't." This is nihilism.
> How would you answer Nagarjuna?
Buddha's "paradox" (if this is what Nagarjuna's premises are intended to
challenge) can be resolved quite simply by the essential ontology, as
Aristotle was wrong. There are no "essences" and only one undivided
Essence. Change, like difference and the dimensions of time and space, is
characteristic of all 'existents' in the world of appearances that
constitute our existential reality.
Essence is uncreated, absolute, immutable, and knows no difference.
Let me know if you find anything I've said above that contradicts what is
presented in my website thesis.