From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 12:22:20 BST
Hi Ham,
Looks like there were hard feelings after all. Sorry about that. As for
understanding your philosophy, I respectfully give up.
Platt
> Hi Platt (Bo, Reinier mentioned) --
>
> > You draw a line for awareness at organisms that have no localized
> > sensibility, yet deny that the line can be drawn for specific species.
> > Further, you say an organism to be aware must experience a self identity.
> >
> > So does my cat have self-awareness? How about a frog? Does a jellyfish >
> have a localized sensibility? By not being specific, Ham, you leave me >
> grasping for understanding.
>
> Your demand for specificity will be a stumbling block to your
> understanding. It's the kind of parsing that goes on when the Right to
> Lifers ask: When does life begin? What they're really asking is: When does
> the fetus become an "individual"? If you can you tell me exactly when the
> post-partum infant has "intellect", I'll tell you when it becomes an
> individual. So far, Science has defined self-awareness with any degree of
> precision. Like all evolutionary processes in a relativistic world,
> self-awareness occurs developmentally (over time). One may reasonably
> conclude that a living organism requires a functioning central nervous
> system for self-identity; however, since self-awareness is subjective
> experience, trying to pinpoint it objectively by the particular species is
> foolhardy. Anyway, why should not knowing if a sea urchin or jellyfish has
> self-awareness impede your understanding of a metaphysical concept? It's a
> specious question that has little relevance in my anthropocentric ontology.
>
> > OK. But that raises the questions of when, how and why non-physical
> > awareness comes into existence. At what stage of evolution does
> > awareness suddenly emerge? Who or what caused it to pop up at that
> > particular time in that particular way?
>
> That's the 'two million dollar' question I hope to be able to answer.
>
> What I'm currently looking for is a metaphysical principle that's still
> missing in this ontology -- primary difference. This is the key to all
> relations. I think the answer may be found in Cusa's theory. Bo has just
> sent a note referring to Cusa as "some Medieval bishop [with] God [as] his
> primal source". That's a vast underestimation of this man's genius. (I
> intend to send him a brief biography of Nicholas of Cusa that I think will
> impress both of you.) For now, let me quote this analysis of Cusa's theory
> of the coincidence of opposites:
>
> "Nicholas of Cusa was the first philosopher to separate himself from
> Scholasticism. He began with a logic based on the coincidence of
> opposites -- at variance with Aristotelian-Scholastic logic, which is based
> on the principle of contradiction. In metaphysics he was Platonic, and the
> notion of the transcendence of God was thus seriously compromised.
>
> "Observing how, in a circumference carried to infinity, the straight and
> the curved line coincide, he affirms that in the infinity of God all
> oppositions are identified, all distinctions overcome, and all contrariety
> fades into nothingness, since the correlative is not to be found. God is
> the "implicatio" of all opposites. But what in God is "implicatio" and
> "complicatio," becomes "explicatio" in the universe, which results from
> multiplicity, distinction, and opposition. This concept does not differ
> substantially from the Neo-Platonic idea. The "explicatio" is equivalent
> to Platonic emanations, by virtue of which God, absolute unity, becomes
> multiple through subsequent emanations. The concept of Nicholas of Cusa
> becomes more dangerous because of the consequences he derives from
> "explicatio." The world is an infinite potential, and because of this it
> participates in an attribute of divinity. This theory was to be reaffirmed
> by Giordano Bruno."
>
> It is clear to me that the Cusan not-other implies "difference", and that
> Cusa himself understood that the absolute 'first principle' (God or
> Essence) cannot in any way be differentiated. So the question we're all
> asking is: How does difference result from absolute unity? I have argued
> (with Reinier) that Essence must include "potentiality" or "intentionality"
> in order to create, that the "primary" step in creation is the appearance
> of Difference, and that without this potential, the metaphysical attributes
> "immutable" and "absolute" have no more essence than does pure nothingness.
> I've worked out a "valuistic teleology" for Essence, but am still in search
> of a metaphysical "primary difference". When I find it, you'll be the
> first to know.
>
> > Please explain what you mean by "not real in the metaphysical
> > sense." I thought metaphysics was about reality, not about
> > what is not real.
>
> Metaphysics is the study of what lies beyond the physical world(existence).
> Just as Quality is metaphysical reality for Mr. Pirsig, Essence is
> metaphysical reality for me. I do not see Quality (by Pirsig's definition)
> capable of being the primary source or cause. This doesn't seem to bother
> the MoQers who are mainly interested in replacing both religion and
> materialism with a "more aesthetic" doctrine to explain evolution, cultural
> values, and to some extent morality. The MoQ thesis is not a metaphysics
> in the classical sense; it's a belief system that bears a closer
> resemblance to Eastern mysticism than to logical positivism or
> philosophical idealism.
>
> > My interest is in understanding you. When you say things like "I think
> > Essence has a 'need' to sense its 'absoluteness' from the perspective of
> > the infinitessimal. In other words, I don't think existence occurs so
> > much by 'natural law' as by what theologists would call 'divine will.' "
> > I'm bewildered.
> >
> > I guess I'm just not up to your high level of philosophical knowledge and
> > sophistication to be able to participate in your metaphysical threads...
>
> That's plain crap, Platt. It has nothing to do with my level of
> philosophical knowledge. The fact is, you are just not as interested in
> (and therefore not as open to) metaphysical concepts as I am. Your
> passions are focused on the arts and politics -- topics which I find
> relatively less important (i.e., of less value), hence have less to
> contribute as a participant.
>
> > I wouldn't blame you for not wasting your time answering my questions, >
> but rather spending that time conversing with others who are at your
> > level of expertise. No hard feelings either way.
>
> I don't know how you possibly could come to the conclusion that I don't
> wish to discuss philosophy with you. Indeed, I very much want and
> appreciate your participation, and have asked for it on more than one
> occasion. As to my supposed "level of expertise" on the subject, I can
> already hear Paul, Ant, MSH, Matt, David, Scott, and the rest of the gang
> rolling over in laughter at the phrase. So, please don't try to make me a
> whipping boy for hurting your feelings. It's a groundless accusation that
> is not worthy of your intelligence.
>
> Cheers,
> 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 Sep 22 2005 - 04:21:33 BST