On Wednesday 5 September 2007 7:38:52 PM Ham writes to Joe > Hi Ham, > > IMO You deny time as a dimension. It seems to me that the delay that > light takes to reach earth from the sun is a dimension proper to light. > Do you also deny length, breadth, and height as dimensions? You deny > motion, no space. You present an ontology that is impossible to discuss > as I can’t experience your words. I am not fast enough! By your ontology > I don’t exist, only Ham knows he exists by knowing nothing. Ham you are > the primary source. Convenient! How does that make you feel? > I am impressed!
[Ham] Your sarcasm implies that I have pulled off some deceitful trick on you, that my propositions are twisting logic in some way to confuse you. I assure you that this is not the case. [Joe] I admit when I first read: ["The fallacy, Craig, is the notion that anything in existence is "at rest". I maintain that existence is dynamic, but that its source is static. Because Essence does not change, motion cannot logically be characteristic of it. Which is why we can never catch the "source" of reality in the physical world."] in your post of Tuesday Sept 4, I felt diminished. I felt a chasm open which made further communication impossible. IMO your ontology is brilliant in forming a 3 in 1 proposition, and I was disappointed that I could not communicate that. I differ from you in the order of the 3 in 1. IMO my existence is the unchanged "I am" and to talk about it I have to admit my emptiness in the presence of a cosmic and conscious impulse to change. There is a hierarchy. How I exist is not static. [Ham] We can describe existence from our knowledge of it, but we can only define Essence conceptually, because we have no direct experience of it. [Joe] I disagree! Joe On 4/5 Joe said: > Hi Ham, > > IMO You deny time as a dimension. It seems to me that the delay that > light takes to reach earth from the sun is a dimension proper to light. > Do you also deny length, breadth, and height as dimensions? You deny > motion, no space. You present an ontology that is impossible to discuss > as I can’t experience your words. I am not fast enough! By your ontology > I don’t exist, only Ham knows he exists by knowing nothing. Ham you are > the primary source. Convenient! How does that make you feel? > I am impressed! Your sarcasm implies that I have pulled off some deceitful trick on you, that my propositions are twisting logic in some way to confuse you. I assure you that this is not the case. First off, I do not "deny" anything. (That is your word.) Remember, I defined existence as "appearance" and said that all knowledge is derived from it. I also said that everything in existence is differentiated and transitional. Existence is the actualized mode of Essence which happens to be framed in three dimensions (four, if you include time). We can describe existence from our knowledge of it, but we can only define Essence conceptually, because we have no direct experience of it. The confusion arises when we try to deal with both systems at once. Unfortunately, that is what the philosopher is obliged to do when developing a metaphysical hypothesis to explain reality. Suppose we just consider Time, as it seems to be your immediate concern. IMO time is an intellectual concept to account for the fact that we perceive reality as a "process in transition." All events are experienced serially, from past to present, and to some extent projected into the future. Because we are directly aware of only "the present", which is different from "the past", we say that this change is a process that moves from the past to the future. But while the serialization of reality into time zones is a convenience to understanding, there is no justification for attributing time to metaphysical reality. Alan Watts once likened man's view of reality to someone unfamiliar with animals who upon observing a cat through a picket fence describes the experience as a head with ears and whiskers, followed immediately by a larger body, and lastly by a furry tail. His point, of course, was that from our finite perspective reality unfolds as a series of events in time. The interruptions in the sequence are due to the incremental mode of human awareness in which all phenomena are experienced as either "now" or "then" and become knowledge only as a continuum of events. Why should reality be "incomplete or unfinished" simply because man's organic sensibility is too limited to see it in its entirety? If existence is a constantly evolving process, it has no final destination or form. But suppose reality is a 'fait accompli', and we only see it differentiated as existence? That's what I'm proposing, Joe. Motion, change, dimensions, and relations are all differentiated aspects of experiential reality as it appears to man. The "deception" of appearance is due to the limitations of human perception. We live, work and play by the rules of a differentiated system that is always changing and never finished. But we don't have to conclude that the experienced world is the true reality. (At least I don't.) What about you, Joe? --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
