From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 01:51:04 GMT
Back already, Chin?
> Maybe you can bring this snippet down to fifth grade terms that I could
understand;
OK. I'll take them one by one.
> Since the division of infinity by nothingness does not reduce the quotient
value, (what are you valuing from nothing to
> infinity)
In a previous section on "differentiation" I tried to demonstrate that the
division of infinity by any value does not affect the quotient. Thus,
> the presence of a negated otherness in no way diminishes or alters the
Absolute Source. (and the absolute source is?)
I define the absolute source several lines down in that same paragraph as
"uncreated" Essence.
> "Otherness" is Essence Value whose negated sensibility leaves a void as
the "seed" of differentiation. (It came from
> nothing, and became something?)
No, this is the start of something -- Creation in space/time. As Ekhart
said, "to create is to give Being out of nothing," There is no space/time
for Essence; it is omnipresent.
> This seminal void [nothingness] is the causative factor of a polarized
system in which sensibility confronts its denied value > as an otherness.
(Would the denied value of nothingness not be somethingness?)
It would be perceived as Being but it is not Essence. I refer to these
denied-value entities as "essents."
> It could be said that Essence constantly "denies that otherness is
anything but itself" by negating or relinquishing an
> autonomous sensibility within otherness to "challenge" it. (and if we
accept that it can only be if we experience it, how >can it be if it is not
what we experience? The essence would be the opposite of what we
experience?)
You have surmised correctly. Essence is the antithesis of nothingness.
There is no being without our experience of it.
> The challenging "essent"—sensibility-of-value—is implanted in the negate
as the "not-other" contingent of this
> dichotomy. (How sinsibility of value be challeniging?)
I use "challenge" as a metaphor to help explain the dynamics involved, as
Eckhart would have described it. I think you'll understand the value
dynamics better after you've grasped the ontology here.
> Like its object [other], not-other is also a value-depleted essent that is
separated from the Source by nothingness
> (empty space and time). (Where did this object [other] come from to begin
with? nothingness?
It came from the negation of Essence. Essence is "negational". Consider it
as an equation: - Essence = Essent.
> The "Source" is of course uncreated Essence which, to paraphrase Eckhart,
represents "absolute fullness of value",
> (Quality) and the Creation that we are chronicling here is the negational
mode of Absolute Essence. (Nothing needs to > be negated to come from
Quality)
That's Pirsig's view, not mine!
> The negate devolving from this self-abnegation of Essence cannot be
incidental; as a manifestation of the Absolute
> Source, it must serve some essential purpose. One can only presume that
this other/not-other negate is the means by
> which Essence acquires an extrinsic perspective of its own value. (If it
negates value, how does it become value?)
Value is the differentiated perspective of Essence. In Essence it is
absolute and doesn't change. In man it is sensible part of experience. For
experience to take place there must first be Difference. The negation of
Essence creates this difference using Nothingness to cause it. All of
finitude, including man himself, is differentiated Essence.
> 'Nothingness' comes from a denial of 'Self', yes, but this does not
include the other self, or 'Otherness' as a negation of
> this 'Nothingness'.
Otherness is not a "self"; it is self's beingness. Both "self" (not-other)
and Other (Being) are negated essents. They form a dichotomy from which the
finite world arises in man's experience.
> Quality is the nothingness, oneness, source or absolute. When you speak in
terms of 'Better than' as a definition, it is the > definition of Quality
event, or Quality experience. It goes beyond experience as Quality is there
to be experienced, not
> that the experience creates Quality, but our perception can build upon the
Quality that already exists. Quality is the
> 'Value' you speak of.
You may think of it that way. But then Quality has to be the primary cause;
else, where does the self come from? You can't have experience without a
subject and an object, which means you must account for differentiation in
order to explain creation. The MoQ does not.
My Creation ontology is a hypothesis which can't be proved empirically.
Therefore, your comment " it seems to me that what you are offering has some
convinient factualizing that doesn't truly lend itself to unguestioned fact"
does not apply. Most all of metaphysics is hypothetical. We can never have
the answers to ultimate truth. If we possessed absolute knowledge we would
not be free individuals.
I hope this has been helpful, Chin. Thanks for evaluating my thesis.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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 : Fri Dec 03 2004 - 02:25:41 GMT