From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 20:05:38 BST
Hi Ham the man
see comments below:
> Perhaps I should have asked, can there be Actuality (existence) without
> Potentiality (Essence)?
DM: well this is an important distinction for me, but actuality/potentia is
good for me, no great need for existence/essence. All potential has to
exist,
but of course it does not all become actual and being a human being clearly
involves both. And DQ is the movement of a possible into the actual, where
the actual
is of coursejust a subset of the possible, so what is this actual? Well its
a realm
where certain things that were once possible have been made nothing in
relation to the actual. To give an example, I could in this moment eat the
blue or the orange smarty, but I go for the blue. Never now will this moment
be the one in which I eat the orange smarty. Nor will the next moment be
the time to eat the blue one as that option is now gone for all time.
As for SQ, well that's just to say that certain repeats can occur, because,
praise the lord, there are a good dozen blue smarties here so I can do
twelve repeat blue smarty eating events. But in 12 separate moments, so both
unique and repeating, DQ and SQ.
Next, what about awareness? Seems to me that awareness is very tied to the
possible.
Without the possible what would be the point/meaning of awareness. Awareness
is
clearly in part the solution to the problem of the possible, for
aware-agency knows
what is possible (a very special sort of experiencing) and can choosed which
possible
will become actual. Clearly DQ incorporates such awareness-agency in its
activity.
There is also awareness of the SQ we are (in part) and are surronded by.
This awareness
seems to be driven by the way the surronding SQ is either good or bad for
the SQ that
we are (in part, the extra part being that we are inseparable from DQ too).
regards
David Morey
>
> My interpretation of the Cusan theory is that "Coincidence is actualized
> possibility", and that if actuality did not exist, then nothing could
> actually be. Cusa concluded that "things are; therefore actuality
> exists."
> In other words, Possibility (X) and Actuality (Y) are co-dependent in the
> non-contradictory absolute source (Essence). Since both contingencies (X
> +
> Y) are absolute in Essence (E), there can be no case in which E = (X - Y)
> or
> E = (Y - X). Thus, the very nature of Essence is the coincidence of
> Potentiality and Actuality. Coincidence is a constant.
>
>> I don't distinguish between actuality and potential.
>> The actualization is the realization (awareness) of the potential.
>
> I think we must make this distinction if Actuality and Potentiality are
> the
> absolute contingency. We must account for the absence of awareness, such
> in
> the pre-biological cosmos, at which period there is no actuality and,
> hence,
> no contingency.
>
> You may feel that I'm arguing over straws here, but to be precise in
> defining the primary source we must be prepared to answer the question:
> What
> happens to Essence when it is not actualized? It seems to me that unless
> the awareness that we call "existence" is ALWAYS actualized, the
> coincidence
> definition of Essence falls apart. If our experienced universe is finite
> in
> time, the only solution I can propose is that there must be other
> experienced universes which overlap ours so that there is no gap in
> experience (actualized awareness).
>
>> A value in MoQ perspective hints to a static pattern.
>> The moral system says any static pattern in a higher
>> level is more moral then that in a lower level.
>> From a buddhistic point of view I would say, any
>> SP is clinging to existence, because existence is
>> described in SP's. So any SP is keeping you away
>> from Essence (or Nirvana). Every higher MoQ level is
>> more dynamic and thus has less SP's. That counts for
>> the higher morality, but it's not the SP that is of higher
>> morality but the entire level because it has less SP's.
>> But still a SP in the intellectual level, or a SP in the
>> social level, they're both SP, and thus not the highest
>> possible value, which is value-less, which is Essence.
>
> Sorry, Reinier, but I regard "patterns" as an intellectual construct that
> is
> peculiar to the MoQ thesis. Since I don't recognize patterns, I translate
> your statement as encouraging a "higher", more developed sensibility to
> Value. If, by Buddhistic standards, Nirvana is understood to be the
> highest
> possible sensibility -- sensibility of ("oneness with") the value of
> Essence
> itself, then any lesser sensibility is of the SOM type. I remain somewhat
> skeptical of the possibility of this psychic state.
>
> For practical purposes, I define Value as the affinity for certain
> attributes of "beingness" that are presented to us in experience.
> Realization of Value is a psycho-emotional response of the subject to
> objective reality (existence). This is what I mean by Value being the
> "second-hand" or "once removed" experience of Essence. All value alludes
> to
> Essence -- is ultimately derived from Essence -- but, in common
> experience
> at least, Value is "relational" in that it has an objective referent.
> While
> Essence metaphysically is the ultimate Value, it can be only be realized
> incrementally in human awareness.
> But that suffices to make Value the essence of man's reality.
>
> I don't think we're ready to confront the MoQers with a Primary Difference
> hypothesis until we can come to some agreement on the contiguity of
> existential awareness.
>
> But possibly you can persuade me. I've lost some of your original
> arguments
> of behalf of the theory of "opposition". Would you refresh my mind on
> that
> theory? It could be that Cusanus has led us up a blind ally.
>
> Your ideas are much appreciated, 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
>
>
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 : Wed Oct 05 2005 - 01:52:59 BST