From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 16:11:10 BST
Hello Ham,
I quoted earlier:
> "God's nature is to be, and so there is nothing that happens without
His
existential causality - for no contingent thing is the sufficient
reason its
own existence. No thing and no thing's activity has being without the
primal
causality of the First Being. He is involved in every existing process,
and
because He is the existential cause of all that is, nothing can happen
by
chance for Him. There is no chance with God. For anything outside His
knowledge and will has no being."
Then you asked:
What exactly are you quoting? I don't see that paragraph in the
McManaman
review that I referenced for you. (Could this possibly be a quote from
a
thesis you're working on?)
Whatever its source, I can't disagree with this theistic interpretation.
(Of course you realize it will be an immediate turn-off just by
mentioning
the "G--" word.)
Me:
It DOES come from that the review, and unfortunatly I'm not working on
a thesis on my own... some day.... some day....
I'm not so happy with the G-word either.
You also wrote:
In fact, I think we've already found the Primary
Difference in Essence itself. You defined it when you suggested a
non-contradictory source. Cusanus made it his first principle: the
"coincidence of opposites". It is the very nature of Essence to include
contrariety as a potentiality of its Oneness. That potential is
"actualized" by negation -- the attribute I've "humanized" in my thesis
as
"denial". If we think of Essence as a "negational" source, we infer a
potential whereby Nothingness, the antithesis of Essence (i.e., its
polar
opposite), can be understood as the primary divider that gives rise to
differentiated (i.e., "patterned") existence. We may then proceed to
the
created universe as experienced (epistemology), having resolved the
issue of
how an absolute, undifferentiated source can create a dynamic,
pluralistic
beingness.
Me:
I'm still not to happy by the word 'create' implying a condition where
existence was not created or un-created.
You wrote:
I don't see that morality can be extracted from metaphysics, but it
can't be
denied that the source of existence represents the highest value to man.
And, despite the fact that Value is not an "identity" (unlike Pirsig's
DQ),
it is an important part of our experience that derives from Essence. I
intend to revisit Value in a future epistemological discussion, once we
have
some "positive" consensus on the Primary Difference.
Me:
I think we're pretty far in reaching positive consensus. As for the
value-part of it. I think that word becomes meaningless in relation to
Essence. Or to speak in MoQ terms: value is an attribute of SQ not of
DQ. Value you'll find in existence not in Essence.
I wrote earlier:
> I see two openings for discussion here...
>
> a) the big bang, an interruption of unity of some kind
> that has caused this whole value-chain and causality,
> which we know as subjective awareness. Which created
> time-space awareness but when looked at from outside
> time-space (so from Essence) has no time-length or dimension.
>
> b) the sinfall, a religious interpretation of the same thing,
> where the capability of valueing was introduced (before
> everything was peaceful, but afterwards they were able
> to see the difference between good and bad).
> They choose to see/value. A metaphoric approach.
You replied:
I'd prefer to avoid metaphors altogether, since to the postmodern
mentality
they paint a deceptive picture of reality. In my opinion, the doctrine
of
"original sin" was invented to placate the faithful who could not
understand
how a beneficent deity could allow plagues, suffering, and cruelty.
Me:
I didn't want to give the impression that I think the bible should be
taken literally. I'm not a big expert on the book anyway, and I don't
consider myself to be religious. Religion is mainly a social thing, but
throughout the centuries there have been people that were very wise,
some of them made it into the 'book' and are completely misinterpreted.
Now, with a bit of fantasy Genesis reads like:
At first there was only DQ
But the potential of SQ was there
The only way SQ could become reality was by introducing the concept of
placing value on DQ, liking one thing over another, being able to
spererate things, placing a TRUE or FALSE label on statements. The
choise was there.... do you want to be able to value? The answer was
Yes.
Okay, now if you bring me to the nut-house I won't blame you.....
__________________________________________________________________
Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do!
Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select
delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the new
Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps, White
Pages and more. See for yourself at
http://netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/
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 29 2005 - 16:31:09 BST