From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Sat Oct 15 2005 - 09:33:08 BST
Hello Ham,
You:
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.
Me:
I realise that my explaining is inadequate. I don't think my logic is
false. I'll give it another try thru this message and I'll try not to
rush it (which unfortunatle I sometimes do).
I said:
> Anything that isn't (potentially) actual is either
> nothingness or Essence.
You:
If Essence is all-inclusive, it must include nothingness ("not") as a
potential. Otherwise nothingness could not become actual.
Me:
I concluded later in my post that indeed it could not be nothingness.
This was an 'in between' step for the sake of explaining.
Back on 7/1 I 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.
Based on this you comment:
You agree that experience includes awareness of "not the object". Where
does this nothingness come from?
Me:
This is not 'nothingness'. When we define 'good' we cannot escape the
fact that there exists 'not good' or 'bad' because if everything would
always be good we would not recognize/experience it, and have no need
to label it as good.
If we have X and not-X we can only say that if X = TRUE then not-X =
False. The 'not' in this logic has no relation to 'nothingness'. To
relate to your thesis and the circle that's divided in two halves;
which half is created first? They are created at exactly the same time.
By naming a part of the circle as 'half' or 'part A' you automatically
name the other part as 'other-half' and 'not part-A'. You don't create
one half by using nothingness as divider, but by acknowledging that one
part of the circle is the left half, and at exactly the same moment the
rest of the circle cannot be the left-part, so is 'not' the left part.
I hope this explains that the 'not' from my logic does not refer to
'nothingness'. If it doesn't please let me know, and I'll try to be
more clear about it.
I'll skip the parts of your post that follow up on this erroneous
interpretation of 'not'
<skip>
Me earlier:
> Since Essence has no polarity, since it is undifferentiated,
> it can not have any opponent!
You:
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.
Me:
Not being is a hypothetical option that only exists in existence,
because we in our polarized reality seek an opponent to everything. The
non-contradictory Source is and remains non-contradictory. We, as
free-agents' choose a reality in existence, so all questions about
contradiction, differentiation and polarity are existensial questions.
We all exists as individuals, but Essentialy we all 'are'.
So, you can see existence and nothingness as opposites, but Essentially
only existence has its Source in Essence and nothingness has its source
in existence, but only as an intellectual concept.
Me earlier:
> Well, anything that actually IS, is part of that absolute
potentiality.
You:
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".
Me:
I can't confirm that nothingness is part of our actualized existence. I
can't say a lot about nothingness, except that it's the hypthetical
opponent of existence, and only from an existential point of view.
You said:
> Nothingness serves a metaphysical purpose.
I replied:
> Indeed it does.
You ask:
Well, what is its purpose? Rather than explain it, you simply deny it:
Me:
It's metaphysical purpose is as hypothetical opponent of existence, an
intellectual concept. No more, no less.
I said before:
> Again I don't agree, nothingness is not part of our
> differentiating/differentiated awareness.
You:
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'.
Me:
No, it doesn't pre-suppose it, it creates it at exactly the same time.
But 'being able to' refers to potention. If A has potention then not-A
has potention. And if not-A has no potention then A has no potention
either.
You:
And our experience of 'A' distinguishes it
from our experience of a 'B' next to it.
Me:
If B = not-A
You:
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.
Me:
The difference between A and not-A is imperative as soon as either A or
not-A is valued as such.
I don't see inconsistency in any of this. As a matter of fact, I think
it's beautiful in it's simplicity.
You:
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.
Me:
That's the source of our disagreement. Valueing has too much baggage.
Recognizing, re-cognizing, is comparing the picture of what you see to
a mental picture of something that at 1 point in your life has been
'valued' (or labeled) as a person.
Therefor 'recognizing' is a form of valueing. Don't see the meaning of
the word 'value' to narrow.
Me earlier:
> 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.....
You:
I don't see the relevance of photonic reactions and quantum physics to
one's
recognizing a woman and appraising her beauty.
Me:
Well try to see it.... if you are able to appreciate the word 'value'
in a wider context, you may see how this is a chain of valueing, or
'layered experience' that also accounts for the fact that we all see
the world very much alike.
Me earlier:
> All that exists is energy, with its different forms of manifestations
> Energy when un-manifested is spaceless and timeless...
You reply:
This is our experience of nothingness -- the "not" of existence which is
really a projection of our own nothingness.
Me:
No it's not, it's unvalued reality, DQ if you wish, it may be the
closest thing to Essence we can find.
Me earlier:
> 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.
You:
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.
Me:
The external stimuli are the lower layers of experience. I used the
phrase 'external stimuli' to link it to your description of an a-priori
reality.
Me earlier:
> 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?
You:
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.
Me:
There's nothing nihilistic about it. Just because physically it seems
to approach a nihilism, or nothingness, because you let go of all
structure, it doesn't mean that metaphysically it's nothing. It is
still a source, it may just not have the theistic, or divine atrtibutes
you would like to see.
You:
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.
Me:
I'll take my time, save it as draft first. I do not whish to consider
it a stalemate just yet.
We live and learn, I hope you will regain some of you enthousiasm.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
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 : Sat Oct 15 2005 - 12:40:56 BST