From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 11:51:26 BST
Hi Scott, David,
I'm really kicking myself for trying to make the connection between
DQ/SQ and potentia/actus a few weeks ago. This is because PRIOR to
that, I'd read Barfield's "Poetic Diction", and been struck by the
similarity of his "poetic principle" (poiein, "Do") and "prosaic
principle" (paschein, "Suffer") to DQ/SQ. So what I was doing trying
to make the link with actus/potentia, I honestly have no idea.
Care to contradict me, Scott? :)
Regards,
Mike
On 9/26/05, Scott Roberts <jse885@localnet.com> wrote:
> David M,
>
> Scott said:
> The distinction I am
> > trying to point out is between potential form and experience.
>
>
> DM said:
> But you said imagination is experience, well to me that sounds like
> potential form=experience , so what is the distinction?|
>
> Scott:
> I think you are misconstruing the pre-materialist philosophical meaning of
> 'potential'. My imaginings are actual, not potential. Again, this looks to
> me like you have been nominalistically indoctrinated to see the word
> 'actual' as meaning 'physical'.
>
> >
> >>Scott said:
> > I see SQ as being potential,
> >> since being a static pattern it is repeatable,
> >> the basic form which various
> >>actualities actualizes.
> >
> > DM said:
> > ????clarify
> >
> > Scott:
> > Two different sentences can mean approximately the same thing. A spoken
> > sentence and a written sentence can mean the same thing. Bravery can be
> > actualized on a battlefield and in a hospital, and so on.
>
>
> DM said: Yes SQ actualises, but what are the actualising 'actualities'?
>
> Scott:
> No, as I see it, SQ gets actualized. An English sentence (an actuality when
> spoken or heard or written or read) actualizes the meaning of the sentence.
> A French sentence also actualizes that same (or very nearly the same)
> meaning. The meaning is the potential, the static pattern that can be
> actualized in different ways at different times.
>
> DM said: Yes I am limiting actual as you say, I thought that was a useful
> way of
> expressing
> the distinction between the real that includes potential and the actual that
> does not.
> Lets call my version the actual-perceptual. What do you want to call your
> actual-non-perceptual,
> is it an actual-imaginary realm? That's good, got to the bottom of this
> difference.
>
> Scott:
> I would say it is not useful, since it is confusing the potential with the
> non-physical. I am using the word potential to refer to all the laws,
> instincts, thoughts, ideas, and so forth, that are not present in the
> moment. What is present is the actual. The actual manifests the potential,
> and has meaning only because there is a potential that it manifests, but
> doesn't completely express the potential. Thus, if one is tempted to align
> potential/actual with DQ and SQ, there are reasons for doing it either way,
> which is to say neither way works very well. But the original question is
> whether there is non-experienced reality, and I am saying that potentiality
> is not experienced. Only actualizations are experienced, some mentally, some
> physically.
>
> - 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
>
>
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 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 12:38:09 BST