From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 29 2005 - 20:07:24 BST
Hi Reinier --
You were right, and I stand corrected. The McManahan critique of Davies did
include these theological references. (I guess I glossed over them, as they
seemed anti-climactic after reading what to me was an otherwise objective
essay.)
> I'm still not to happy by the word 'create' implying a condition where
> existence was not created or un-created.
I think I understand your objections, and I use the term "created world"
mainly to distinguish relational existence from the Absolute Source
(Creator). However, I do think that, in our space/time way of looking at
the universe, we imagine a time in which it did not exist. Perhaps this is
only an "intellectualized" scenario, but the beginning and ending of things
is built into that concept. That is, from an existential perspective, the
universe is not "eternal" but follows the laws of entropy -- from the Big
Bang to its total collapse. Inasmuch as this concept is so ingrained in us,
it is a universally accepted pattern that I don't feel the philosopher is in
a position to challenge.
Of course there is also the possibility of a multi-universe system, or the
"multi-dimensional reality" of New Age metaphysics. Although I do not
subscribe to these views -- they seem to defy the principle of Occam's
razor -- they could conceivably account for an experiential "actuality"
without beginning or end. Indeed, Cusan theory postulates that Potentiality
and Actually are both present in the "coincidental" first principle
(Source.) That would imply that awareness (i.e., experience=existence) is
timeless and omnipresent. In other words, existence must be eternal.
What think you?
I said:
> 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",
> it is an important part of our experience that derives
> from Essence.
You replied:
> 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 agree that value can only be experienced "once removed" from Essence. In
that sense it is subject (awareness) valuing objective beingness. At the
same time, the "ultimate" value is Essence. In my philosophy (and to some
extent in the MoQ) it is the individual's response to Value which makes life
purposeful. I see the interaction between the cognizant self (negate) and
its
Primary Source fulfilling a metaphysical principle through Value. Which is
to say, Essentialism is a valuistic philosophy. This concept, in fact, is
what I was initially looking to find supported in the MoQ. Its author hints
at it, but falls short of actually expressing it.
> 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
> separate 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.
Pirsig might like that as a way of assuaging the theists. But I infer from
your first two lines that only the potential for SQ was there, not its
actuality. If SQ represents Existence, that makes DQ pre-existential (i.e.,
pre-intellectual), and we have to resort to a biblical view of Creation.
This gets back to my previous question: Do you believe there is (or can be)
a Source in the absence of experience? If you do, you'd have to say that
Cusa's Potentiality is not co-dependent with Actuality. I understand that
time is relative and the Absolute is timeless. Still, I don't know how to
resolve the condition of "non-actuality" without tossing out Cusa's
Coincidence theory. I definitely need your help here, Reinier!
Essentially yours,
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 29 2005 - 20:22:15 BST