From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Wed Mar 23 2005 - 22:24:58 GMT
Ham,
Ham said:
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.)
Scott:
I would say we philosophize about it, not philosophologize. It
(Merrell-Wolff's account) is data as well as philosophy, and if it doesn't
"lend itself well to metaphysical ontology", then perhaps we should question
what we want out of metaphysical ontology.
Scott said:
. 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.
Ham said:
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.)
Scott:
I use it for that polarity (N.b., Coleridge used "polarity" more or less the
same way that I use "contradictory identity"), but also, and I think more
importantly, for the polarity between the undifferentiated and the
differentiated. And I don't see it as especially metaphorical.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
So if I deny that the former (process) is derived from the latter
(absolute/static reality) (or vice versa) does that make mine a different
ontology, or no longer an ontology?
Scott said:
> 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 plead ignorance concerning "the third horn of the tetralemma", and am too
lazy to look it up.
Scott:
First horn: not essence
Second horn: not existence
Third horn: not essence and existence
Fourth horn: not neither essence nor existence
Ham said:
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.)
Scott:
Also the Kabbala. I'm not all that opposed to it, by the way. I just think
one can turn the screw one more time and not assume a Somewhat (in your
case, Essence, in the MOQ, DQ, or the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum"
of Northrop) prior to its negation.
Scott said:
> 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.
Ham said:
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).
Scott:
Your use of the phrase "true reality" is the privileging of one over the
other. That is what I reject. Instead, I hold that "Finite intellection" is
a concept to be eliminated. All intellect is a contradictory identity of the
finite and the infinite, and as such is creation.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
For me, purpose is not something that can have a rationale. It is, instead,
yet another of the long list of names for the same (non-)thing, like value,
consciousness, and intellect. Everything else's rationale needs explaining
in terms of purpose (and the rest). That is, it is primal.
By the way, if you've been reading my posts on empiricism, like my last one
to DMB, you'll see I'm no stickler for the empiric.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
See Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry" for an
interesting inquiry into idolatry (but don't blame him for what I am
saying). Traditionally, it means anything that is put in the place of God.
What I mean by it is anything that one can think about as Ultimate, such as
your Essence, or the MOQ's DQ. The function of the logic of contradictory
identity is to deconstruct any such concept, even one which "Man cannot
experience ... directly", or maybe especially such. Not because "to be
experienced" is the mark of the real, but because the unexperienced is in
contradictory identity to the experienced.
Ham said:
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.
Scott:
And, of course, I see you as still a bit in the grip of idolatry, "but
almost there", and I am not sure if having an ontology isn't a mark thereof.
- 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 : Wed Mar 23 2005 - 22:29:28 GMT