From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Sep 14 2005 - 19:31:00 BST
Hi Jos (Reinier mentioned) --
> I will happily answer your questions (as best I can), but
> would be more interested in practical alterations that you
> would suggest to make this diagram more acceptable to you.
Fair enough, and I'll be happy to assist in putting your "diagram" into a
more "acceptable" set of postulates. For the present, however, we must come
to an agreement on concepts. I start with Essence, which I suppose makes me
a reductionist, while you and most of your readers are either inductionists
or synthesists (I'm not sure of the right word.) So, it's critical to me
that Essence be properly "defined" insofar as we can define the transcendent
abstraction that is the foundation of this philosophy.
Let's reconsider the "chaos" concept.
> 1) According to the moq, static patterns are left behind in the
> wake of DQ, my scheme sticks to this idea. I haven't exactly
> said that essence is the same as chaos, essence is essence,
> if anything I am saying that chaos doesn't exist. Its place in
> the hierarchy has been replaced by essence, but essence is
> not taking on the properties of chaos, I want to use your
> definition of it.
To begin with, I don't particularly like the phrase "in the wake of DQ" for
an immutable source. With due respect to Prisig, I think this connotes a
shifting or transitory surge of Essence [DQ] as an explanation for the
differentiation of SQ. I have a new approach to this ontology which is
based on various notions of "contradiction" and "contrariety" that have been
suggested by several posters, including Reinier, whose ideas I value.
I've learned the hard way that it's a mistake to deal with Essence in terms
of "polarity", although I've been tempted to do it several times over the
years because it's a most useful metaphor. I had a minor epiphany this
morning, while lighting up my daily cigar, which has prompted me to revisit
this issue at my own peril. I present it to you here for your
consideration.
The physical world is not only diverse and differentiated, but its
differentiation in many respects constitutes a polarized system. We observe
this polarity in the protons and electrons of the micro-world of nuclear
physics, as well as in antithetical attributes -- being/nothingness,
birth/death, etc. -- in the macro-world of nature. Experienced values are
virtually a study in contrasts -- pleasure/pain, good/evil, beauty/ugliness,
peace/violence, desire/disgust, harmony/dissonance, order/chaos, etc.
Indeed, this "law of opposition" is so prevalent that one can almost regard
existential experience as "contrariety personified".
At the other extreme, the primary source (whether identified as the
Absolute, God, or The One) has historically been regarded as a unified,
undifferentiated Whole. If we assume this to be true, then it follows that
the absolute source is the antithesis of polarized multiformity. In other
words, Essence [DQ] is that state or mode of reality in which there is no
opposition and polarity disappears. I submit that Essence has logical
validity as the 'non-contradictory first principle'.
I'm reminded of what Professor Clyde Miller said about Cusa's theory of the
not-other as applied to this first principle: "The transcendent not-other
thus undercuts both the principles of non-contradiction and of the excluded
middle." Consider the following expressions, and let me know how they might
be better stated:
Existence [SQ] = positive vs. negative = contrariety
Essence [DQ] = positive=negative = unity
If you see any value to this approach, perhaps you might want to incorporate
it some way in your "collage". On the other hand, if your your intutive
light doesn't flash, we can proceed to the "heirarchical" points under
discussion. I intend to address those in a follow-up post.
Jos, despite our differences, I'm encouraged in equal measure by your
persistence and analytical skills, and I greatly appreciate your willingness
to take my ideas under consideration. Perhaps I was too hasty in concluding
that we were on different pages. (Can we still "agree to disagree"?)
Thanks for the opportunity,
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 : Wed Sep 14 2005 - 20:29:00 BST