From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Oct 13 2005 - 20:06:56 BST
Hey, Reinier --
I'm disappointed that you are unable to appreciate my concept of
nothingness. At the same time, I fail to understand the logic of yours.
Until I do, I can't be convinced that my ontology is false.
Let's examine the logic behind the assertions you've made about nothingness.
You say:
> Anything that isn't (potentially) actual is either
> nothingness or Essence.
If Essence is all-inclusive, it must include nothingness ("not") as a
potential. Otherwise nothingness could not become actual.
Back on 7/1 you said:
> You need to be able to be aware of 'not the object'
> to be aware of 'the object'. An experience of 'A' will
> always be accompanied by the experience of a possible
> 'not A'. This implies you need a limitation in either time
> or space of the experience.
You agree that experience includes awareness of "not the object". Where
does this nothingness come from? If it is separate from Essence, then it
invalidates the absolute potential of Essence. Clearly, the "not" of
experience that accounts for our awareness of space and the difference
between contiguous objects is just as "essential" as the objects themselves.
Which means that space and the objects experienced within it are both
actualized from Essence. The fact that they are "actualized" means that
they are both contained in the potentiality of Essence.
> Since Essence has no polarity, since it is undifferentiated,
> it can not have any opponent!
But you yourself agreed with Cusa that Essence is the "coincidence" of all
opposition. Being and not-being (nothingness) are existential opposites
which coincide in the non-contradictory Source. Since Essence is "not
other", the "not" is included in the absolute potentiality of Essence. The
"limitation in time and space" that you speak of is the nothingness that
accounts for the perception of difference in our experience.
> Well, anything that actually IS, is part of that absolute potentiality.
You prove my point, Reinier. You can't deny that nothingness is part of our
actualized existence. Therefore it must be "part of that absolute
potentiality".
I said:
> Nothingness serves a metaphysical purpose.
You replied:
> Indeed it does.
Well, what is its purpose? Rather than explain it, you simply deny it:
> Again I don't agree, nothingness is not part of our
> differentiating/differentiated awareness.
Then why do we "need to be able to be aware of 'not the object' in order
to be aware of 'the object'? Clearly, as you say, our experience of 'A'
presupposes a possible 'not A'. And our experience of 'A' distinguishes it
from our experience of a 'B' next to it. The difference between 'A' and 'B'
is the nothingness that separates them. So, nothingness IS actualized in
existence. I'm sorry, Reinier, but your logic is inconsistent.
I also see some confusion on the subject of Value.
> When we 'value' a person as beautiful,
> by our judgement then, this person has already
> been valued as 'a person' by our intellect ...
No she hasn't. She has been recognized (intellectually) as a person before
she is "valued" (psycho-emotionally) for her beauty. These are two
different qualifications, each of which is processed by a different part of
the brain.
> it has already been valued as shaped colours different from the
> surroundings by our eyes and:
> it has already been valued a photonic reaction by some molecules,
> etc.....
I don't see the relevance of photonic reactions and quantum physics to one's
recognizing a woman and appraising her beauty.
> All that exists is energy, with its different forms of manifestations
> Energy when un-manifested is spaceless and timeless...
This is our experience of nothingness -- the "not" of existence which is
really a projection of our own nothingness.
> And energy only manifests itself when experienced/valued
>
> No think self, think about what your world really is.
> A mental picture, your body and brains are an other to you. What is
> really your world consists of merely thoughts, provided and shaped by
> external stimuli.
Please explain what these "external stimuli" are. I thought you agreed with
Pirsig that your world is the experience of Quality (i.e., Essence)
differentiated by the patterns of your intellect. Now you seem to be
suggesting that "energy" or "stimuli" are the cause of experience. Where do
they exist in the Quality heirarchy? They have no reality in Essentialism.
> Well if this starting point is timeless, spaceless energy
> And if the ending point is timeless, spaceless thoughts
> Then why would there be the need for anything in between that is
> anything but that?
I really don't know. Sounds like nihilism to me. Without a primary source
it's all a chaotic dreamworld. Hardly seems worth the effort to live it
out.
> Well enough from the cabinet of silly thoughts
> (hope you know Monthy Pyton)
I know Monty Python from the TV series my wife seemed to enjoy. Frankly, my
sense of humor is somewhat less juvenile.
I'm going to be away until Tuesday. Should you wish to explain the above
inconsistencies to me, I'll be happy to review them on my return. Should
you feel that we've reached a stalemate, I'll understand that too.
Thanks, Reinier
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 Oct 13 2005 - 21:20:22 BST