From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 04:43:38 BST
Ian --
I suspect my last post crossed in the mail with yours. So your comments are
actually a reply to my earlier note of 4/19.
> I too believe in a concept of "essence", ontologically, but given the
> rest of the debate going on it's highly unlikely we mean the same
> thing.
Hold on, young man! Let's not jump to conclusions -- and forget about
previous debates.
You say you believe in an essence ontology. Would you describe that essence
as something like matter, something like consciousness, or something in
common with both? If you believe in a single essence, it would have to have
a commonality with the everything it was 'essential to', would it not? So,
already you have found yourself in my camp.
> A couple of your phrases beg questions
> "the refusual to accept a primary source ..."
>
> I don't believe in a metaphysical primary source, so I can't see where
> to take this, not in this thread anyway.
Okay, you don't like the expression "primary source'. But bear with me.
If you believe that everything in the physical world has a common essence
beyond appearances, isn't this essence the "metaphysical source" by
definition? And if Essence is the metaphysical source of things
[phenomena], it must also be the cause of phenomena, as well. Is there any
reason to presuppose a prior cause? If not, then your Essence is the
'primary source' -- also by definition.
So, where do you see a contradiction in our basic ontologies? You may not
agree with all the details of my ontological presentation but, remember,
it's not a doctrine. It's just a presentation -- a hypothesis --
constructed, like all metaphysical concepts, from the bricks of intuitive
understanding held together by the mortar of logic and reason.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Words and terms mean nothing
if they don't convey the author's concept. Try to ignore the fact that you
don't like certain expressions used to postulate a theory. Focus on the
substance rather than the words. If the conclusion rings true, then the
theory has meaning to you.
> Sorry,
> Ian
Apologies not accepted. I remain open for further discussion. How about a
new thread called: "Is a primary cause necessary?"
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 : Thu Apr 21 2005 - 04:46:49 BST