From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Sep 12 2004 - 02:44:59 BST
David M,
> you say memory & notice in phenomenolgical terms
> you are right, but I suggested this in ontological terms,
> where we try to tell a story of the cosmos prior to being.
> G Read suggests that we take universe as = to all
> evolving possibles, and cosmos as finite actuality, a
> subset of all evolving possibles. He also suggests that
> absense is key to understanding contradictory identity.
> It is the return from absense that implies the universal.
> It is the withdrawal that makes actual the particular.
Just absence doesn't work, since you need a universal to be aware of
absence ("something should be here but isn't"). And you need awareness. The
bit about withdrawal I'm not sure about. It is an old Kabbalist notion,
made necessary by treating God as absolutely simple, or in Read's case, the
Ultimate. I think it is not necessary if God is a contradictory identity to
begin with. (Not that I think I can truly make sense of this).
How is Read different from Aristotle, with the possibilities/actual bit?
What does he say, if anything, about treating cosmos (the "actual") as
expression?
I also think there are problems with the idea of local interaction, as you
explain it in your post to DMB. Peirce would say that this is an attempt to
explain things in terms of seconds (A hits B, for example). But seconds are
(to switch vocabularies) a SOM invention, an attempt to say something
happens without Quality (or Intellect) being involved.
- 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 : Sun Sep 12 2004 - 02:55:14 BST