From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 16:05:27 GMT
Ham,
Scott said:
> I'm not sure what you think counts as an ontology. I think my answer is:
> contradictory identity (not essence, not existence, not essence and
> existence, not neither essence nor existence).
Ham said:
According to Webster's Collegiate, "ontology" is "1: a branch of metaphysics
concerned with the nature and relations of being; 2: a particular theory
about the nature of being or the kinds of existents." Dagobert Runes
relates the term to "the First Philosophy of Aristotle, the science of the
essence of things." He also says that it was introduced into philosophy by
your friend, Wolff; so I would expect you to have more than a passing
acquaintance with the word. The answer you're giving me appears to be a
logical aphorism for contrarity -- unification as opposed to either/or.
Scott:
I'm aware of the dictionary definition of 'ontology', which is why I asked
what "you think" counts as ontology. For example, is a process metaphysics,
which privileges becoming over being, still an ontology? Probably. But does
contradictory identity count as an ontology? I'm not sure. It shifts away
from asking about the nature of being or what sorts of things are real, in
that it sees beingness and becomingness as products of contradictory
identity.
By the way, have you been confusing "my friend" Franklin Merrell-Wolff (d.
1985) with Christian Wolff (d. 1750-something)? In any case, you might be
interested in Merrell-Wolff as at least partially supporting your thesis, in
that he talks about "the more ponderable a thing is, the less real it is"
(that's not a direct quote).
And no, my answer is not "unification as opposed to either/or". That option
is rejected in the third horn of the tetralemma ("not essence and
existence").
Ham said:
I use ontology as the "how" of creation. It is a hypothetical explanation
offered for the creative process -- how existence and its differentiated
constituents arise from an undifferentiated source. (You might want to
review the section titled "Creation" on my website; it's a work in progress,
so there may be some additions since you last visited it.)
Scott:
So you are presupposing an undifferentiated source (like the MOQ does). This
is one place I differ from the MOQ, in that I think the
undifferentiated/differentiated to be a contradictory identity, and hence
one should not be privileged over the other.
Scott said:
> How can you get a general teleology for creation? Doesn't this lead to a
> regress to the unanswerable: why anything rather than nothing? If you
insist
> on some general answer, mine would be creation for creation's sake. A
> rationale for specific cases will depend on the specifics.
Ham said:
Obviously, any explanation of creation will be hypothetical. I state in my
thesis that man cannot have access to absolute truth and be a free agent.
You may see this as a "regression to the unanswerable"; but if philosophy
were not a speculative subject, why would there be so many opinions about
it?
Nothing personal, Scott, but "creation for creation's sake" is a copout --
much like Quality for Quality's sake. A philosopher should be expected to
articulate a plausible rationale for his thesis, and most do so. The
"teleology" I refer to is the cosmic meaning or purpose (for man) that
should be implicit in any ontological theory. I've tried to abide by
Occam's razor, positing as few specifics as possible.
Scott:
It is a copout if you are asking for the "why" of creation. I take
creativity as a bottom-ing out term (like Quality, Consciousness, Intellect)
in that there is no deeper level by which they can be explained. One can
describe their activity, which bottoms out with contradictory identity. So,
for the "how" of creation, my answer is the same for the "how" of Quality,
Consciousness, and Intellect: contradictory identity, which amounts to
saying that the one is the other. But I'm afraid I do not have a detailed
description of that "how", nor am I sure one can get one. After all,
description (and explanation) doesn't work well without the laws of
contradiction and identity, which do not apply in talk of contradictory
identity.
Ham said:
I've promised Platt that, unless there's an objection, I intend to expound
my Creation hypothesis in this forum after everyone has had an opportunity
to comment on Thor's Objectivism essay.
It may be difficult to believe, but my participation in the MD is really
aimed at reaching a synthesis of the MoQ with Essentialism. So far it's
been an uphill battle against the nihilists. You and Platt would seem to be
among the last bastion of "primacy believers", and I'm no longer so sure of
Platt.
Scott:
I wouldn't be so sure of me either. One advantage (as I see if) of taking
all of these (Quality, Consciousness, Intellect, Language, Will, Creativity,
Love, Power, ...) as "primary" is to lessen the tendency to idolatry, a
tendency that especially arises by seeing the undifferentiated side of them
as the "source", and the differentiated as lesser. This, again, is one of my
dissents from the MOQ.
- 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 Mar 20 2005 - 16:34:33 GMT