Hi Ian --
> Interestingly, the idea that "is not" says no more (about existence) > than "is" is the point about negation adding nothing to assertion > (about existence / reality) made in a parallel thread. It is simply > about one subject communicating with another. > > It's about nothing more "essential" than language. I respectfully disagree. Unless language is your fundamental reality, which would make you a semioticist, the terms of reality have a specific referent. To say that "essence" is only a word is simply expressing your denial of it. Mr. Prisig chose to call reality Quality, which has real meaning as a subjective assessment of something but cannot be equated with Essence as the fundamental reality. If we assume that philosophers' terms are not to be taken seriously, we are demeaning Philosophy. That's why definitions are important. They define the concept--the ontology, epistemology, or cosmology--that the author is articulating. You may reject the concept, but you have no justification for asserting that the fundamental terms are insignificant or groundless. Regards, Ham > On 10/7/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Greetings Ian, Marsha, and welcome Dallas -- >> >> One can be 100% confident until Truth proves him wrong. >> >> > We could try to reduce "I think therefore I am" >> > into "I am" or even just "Is". >> > But of course "is" is only true when compared to "is not", >> > so there is still some doubt there. >> >> Right on! As Truth would have it, "is" cannot be without "is not". But, >> since being then is a contingency, some people ask: Is what "is not" >> contingent upon what "is"? An negative answer argues for Nihilism: All >> is >> vanity (or nothingness). An affirmative answer argues for Essentialism: >> That which is absolutely can give rise to that which appears >> contingently. >> >> What the Cogito should have stated is that "something is". And if >> something >> is, then "isness" (i.e., Essence) is the fundamental reality, with or >> without "is not". >> >> A good exercise in logical thinking, Dallas. Where do you go from there? >> >> Essentially yours, >> Ham >> >> >> 10/7/07, Ant McWatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/7/07, MarshaV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Greetings, >> >> In what facts are you 100% confident? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Marsha, >> >> >> >> Literally 100% confident? >> >> What about "Something thinks therefore something is"? >> >> >> >> Or, thinking about Leary's book of 'Psychedelic Prayers', how about >> >> "All >> >> Things (Must) Pass"? >> >> >> >> Ant 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/
