From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 20:33:34 GMT
Hi Scott --
> 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).
Yes, I picked up on Wolff from Runes Dictionary, not realizing it was
another Wolff from the 18th century. What Franklin Merrell-Wolf actually
said as his "Third Premonitory Recognition" was: "Substantiality is
inversely proportional to ponderability". According to Tom McFarland, who
apparently edited the Merrell-Wolff Fellowship website, this means that "the
degree of true substance or reality is the inverse or opposite of the degree
of ponderability. Thus, concrete objects of experience, which have a high
degree of ponderability, are the least substantial. Subtle or abstract
objects of experience, on the other hand, which are less ponderable, partake
of a higher degree of substantiality and reality."
I'm not sure what he means by "ponderability". Certainly we have more
intelligent data to ponder on physical objects than on abstract concepts,
but I would wager that a true Nirvana experience would be far more vivid
than objective experience and leave us with much more to ponder. But while
we may learn from a mystic like Wolff, it is second-hand experience which
does not lend itself well to metaphysical ontology. (We end up
philosophologizing about it, ref: most of the postings on MD.)
> 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.
You seem to be using "contradictory identity" as a metaphor for the polarity
of differentiated existence. (If there's more to your concept, you'll have
to enlighten me.) Anyway, I would place ontology at the fulcrum between
"process" and "absolute (or static) reality" insofar as it is the theory of
how the former is derived from the latter. I would also put "being" on the
process side because of its association with existence, which is essentially
the nature of process.
> 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").
I plead ignorance concerning "the third horn of the tetralemma", and am too
lazy to look it up. My "unified" Essence is not contradictory -- not an
"either/or". I explain Essence as "negational" in the sense that it denies
itself to create otherness. (This roughly follows the metaphysics of
Eckhart and Nicholas de Cusa.)
> 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.
Undifferentiated/differentiated is a contradictory modality, although I
don't see why one is "privileged" over the other, except that true reality
is undifferentiated, while physical reality is differentiated by finite
intellection (experiential cognizance).
> [Creation for creation's sake] is a copout if you are asking for the "why"
of
> creation.
Unless your metaphysical ontology includes a teleological rationale, which
mine does.
I happen to think ontology demands a teleology; otherwise it offers no
meaning or purpose for existential life. Remember, we're not dealing with
empirical knowledge here, Scott; metaphysics is a hypothetical theory of
reality.
> 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.
O.K.
Ham also said:
> 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.
If I follow what you're saying here, I may agree with you to some extent.
Man cannot experience Essence directly; he can only realize its Value(s)
from its differentiated manifestations. But "idolatry'? That's a pretty
strong word for finite experience.
From all that you've stated, I still see you as an Essentialist -- somewhat
confused, perhaps, but almost there. You're the only MoQer, in fact, who'll
discuss ontology with me. Matt thinks it isn't necessary and wants to get
rid of it, and Platt is stuck in Pirsig's levels & patterns.
How about this? -- I'll explain my ontology if you'll explain yours.
Essentially,
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 : Mon Mar 21 2005 - 20:42:26 GMT