Craig --
> If we "do not have any empirical knowledge of what gives > rise to being", why presuppose there is something that gives > rise to being? It just pushes the question back to where > does the alleged primary cause or source come from? Indeed, why assume that the primary source must have a beginning? Alpha and omega are the beginning and end of finite existence because they represent the limits of experiential perception. To assume that the source of creation must itself be limited to the conditions of finitude is what our friend Pirsig might have called "low quality intellection." I asked you what you believe gives rise to being. Since you apparently have no answer to the question, I'll offer my own. It's based on three fundamental metaphysical principles: 1) Nothing can come from nothingness. 2) Everything that exists is differentiated (by nothingness). 3) Essence is the absolute integration of all difference. Since existence is differentiated awareness (experience), its primary source is Essence. But since we do not experience essentially but differentially, nothingness is the universal "differentiator". Therefore, in order to experience being, it must be "reduced" from Essence by nothingness. This implies an apparent division of Essence which itself is indivisible. Instead of proposing a complex hierarchy of levels, one of which is Intellect (or mind), my hypothesis is that Essence negates nothingness to create difference. Multiplicity begins with "two", and I define existence as the "actualized" dichotomy of two mutually dependent contingencies, Sensibility and Otherness, both of which are derived from an uncreated source (Essence). This negational division of Oneness into a dichotomy establishes the primary difference whereby individuality and relations are possible. Value-sensibility is the primary attribute of proprietary awareness (self) by which the value of otherness is objectivized as differentiated being. Just as experience is the differentiated mode of awareness which does not impugn the integrity of the subjective agent, the negational mode of Essence does not impugn the integrity of its undifferentiated source. Moreover, since realization of Value (by the autonomous agent) ultimately counters the effect of negation, it may be viewed as the teleology of Essentialism. I know you will complain that I have no empirical justification for such a cosmology, have made it up out of whole cloth, have resorted to that dreaded "supernaturalism", etc., etc. I can only say that it is an answer--I think a plausible one--to the enigma you've posed. And while metaphysical answers are by fiat beyond empirical proof, I would suggest that considered belief is better than presumptive denial. Besides, this is what philosophy is all about. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity, Craig. --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/
