From: Laycock, Jos (OSPT) (Jos.Laycock@OFFSOL.GSI.GOV.UK)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 12:53:24 BST
This de-escalation is much appreciated Ham,
I find nothing to disagree with in the pre-amble so will go straight for the
equations:
Existence [SQ] = positive vs. negative = contrariety
Essence [DQ] = positive=negative = unity
My first question to myself is,
Although many aspects of existence are reducible to positive/negative
distinctions are there any that are not, and if not, can each binary choice
be expressed as one single larger thing that includes both?
The first part of the question, I have thought about for some time now, and
without going into it, I agree with you and conclude the answer to be no. As
to the second part:
In thinking about these questions I realise that the contrariety concept is
really a description of opposite ends of scales of grey. So each pattern
that is expressed in this way is best represented by a position on a line or
better still, an infinite axis, where that axis shows, (for example)
absolute pleasure at one "end" and absolute pain at the other. My only
concern is that as soon as I look at it in this way, I worry that a position
on one axis cannot be the whole story. An "existing" entity under scrutiny
should not be limited in its properties to just pleasure and pain, it also
has a value on a birth/death axis and a value on a beauty/ugliness axis,
(etc..). Suddenly I see an image of a 3d stellate object composed of linear
grey scales (of infinite length) whose intersections define the absolute
value of a point of existence. The static value is only defined in this
image by the relationships (angles?)of the various grey scale axes to one
another, as the scales themselves are inherently composed of the same stuff.
i.e. death is the same thing as birth, the difference is only created into
existence where this axis crosses another one and a point of existential
reference appears. Prior to that (non temporal) moment, a line on its own is
infinitely long and thus position on its length is meaningless. Essence, in
this way is absolutely defined, as the state of non existence where positive
and negative cannot be separated into defined entities.
Your equations are probably clearer to most people but as soon as those
intuitive lights started flashing, I cant help but assign imagery and try to
make it "real". As you say, hierarchy can follow later.
Jos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
[mailto:owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk]On Behalf Of hampday@earthlink.net
Sent: 14 September 2005 19:31
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
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
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis
in partnership with MessageLabs.
Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf
for further details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
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 Sep 15 2005 - 13:39:29 BST