Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Sep 12 2004 - 15:05:28 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD A bit of reasoning"

    Read says he has some links to Aristotle & Hegel
    but is more concrete in his approach, no other realm,
    only the larger realm of possibles.

    There is certainly something non-intellect like about all
    those aspects of the cosmos that are very repetitive.
    Try the book about Read based on his lectures
    called "The Cohesive Universe" a must for Mark I think.

    DM

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 2:44 AM
    Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning

    > 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
    >

    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 - 15:08:19 BST