Hi Ham, response inserted ... On 10/7/07, Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
[IG] Disagreeing with my final Ham-provoking statement ? Or with the whole preceeding para ? The "It's" in my final sentence was about the significance of negation ( eg the "is not" statement) > Unless language is your fundamental reality, which > would make you a semioticist, the terms of reality have a specific referent. [IG] Well, if you allow me to generalise language to "communication of information" and information to "significant difference", then I do often to claim to wear that hat. I often express my view of the subject-relationship-object triple (called quality by Pirsig, more fundamental than either subject or object) as "information" - information being the most fundamental thing I've come across (anywhere, in physics or metaphysics). > To say that "essence" is only a word is simply expressing your denial of it. [IG] Well yes, that could have been a point I was making, though I didn't actually say your "essence" was "only" anything. I said negation "nothing MORE essential" than language. > 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. [IG] Not demeaning, more de-meaning. Pointing out that reliance on definitions, that strictly apply in a closed domain of philosophy, is misguided / misleading (plain wrong) in the wider world beyond the thought experiments of that domain. Meaning is communicated in active usage in real life, not by definitions. > That's why definitions are important. They define > the concept--the ontology, epistemology, or cosmology--that the author is > articulating. [IG] Gimme credit Ham. I do know why (and where and when) defintions are valuable. > You may reject the concept, but you have no justification for > asserting that the fundamental terms are insignificant or groundless. [IG] I may, but the point I am rejecting is being missed I think. You refer to "fundamental terms" QED. [IG] Shall I repeat - no MORE fundamental than language (terms). I'm happy to see some concepts as MORE fundamental than others in the terminology of any given metaphysics - but I see an important difference between "more fundamental" (epistemologically - choosing terms to communicate meaning) and "absolutely fundamental" (ontologically - actually existing). Regards, Ian > > 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/ > 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/
