On Monday 18 February 11:33 PM Ham writes to Joe:
Hi Joseph --
I'll try to answer your questions, insofar as I understand them, but it may
require further dialogue to narrow them down.
[Joe]:
> Aristotle defined motion as "actus in potentia quantum in potentia".
> Aristotle defined a word as being an abstracted essence given
> intentional existence in a mind, to distinguish it from Plato¹s world
> of ideas. Ham, how can you know an essence without it becoming
> "actus". The essence becomes itself but different. And then you
> have the real and intentional division of existence of SOM. The
> value of existence is entirely denied. You state: "Essence is the
> potentiality to be but not being itself." Is your essence real or
> intentional? And if it is real how is it related to the existence of
> a sentient being? And if intentional, where does the value of
> existence manifest?
Hi Ham
[Joe]
The question I am asking is Which is more real ³existence² or ³abstraction²
involving ³intentional existence²? IMO Pirsig answered that there is no
intentional existence. Aristotle was wrong. Intentional existence is not
metaphysics, nor is potential existence except, perhaps, to a designer.
There is no mind which abstracts essence from reality, there is only inner
and outer experience.
[Ham]
I'm not an Aristotelian, but I take it that the above quotation roughly
translates to "being is potentiality actualized". I know Aristotle believed
that all material entities (beings) have the potential for change but to
realize this potential requires an "efficient cause", such as an artist to
sculpt a statue from a slab of marble. I'm not sure, however, how you
distinguish "intentionality" from "potentiality". If your reference is to
Essence, the meanings are the same. The acts of a sentient being are
intentional, of course, although its potentiality is limited.
[Joe]
I don¹t distinguish ³intentionality² as realized potential from
³potentiality². There is only reality, the value of existence.
[Ham}
You ask how I can know (an) essence without it become actualized. ("actus").
I cannot "know" Essence directly; I can only assume it intuitively from my
awareness of its value. However, I do not "actualize" being; I perceive it
as an "intellectualized construct" of my value sensibility. In my ontology,
actualization is the potentiality of Essence to separate or divide
sensibility from otherness (the essent) so that the sensible agent can make
value aware (as being).
[Joe]
IMO To not know ³essence² directly indicates that the meaning in the use
of the word is a belief.
[Joe]
> 1+1=2. The value of one doubled is two. Mathematical
> calculation is only potential reality, and it can be dismissed
> in the realm of essence.
[Ham]
Agreed. Logical truth and mathematical values apply only within a
relational system. In Essence, all differences are unified. Opposites like
positive and negative, being and nothing, alpha and omega, are essentially
One.
[Joe]
Wow! Mathematical calculation is a precise language. I called it ³potential
reality². That was stupid on my part. My inner/outer experience is
corrupted by my educational experience. I carry perverse SOM still.
> IMO S/O refers to internal, external manifestations in
> human awareness. The essence of a sentient being cannot
> be only possibility if the value of existence matters.
[Ham]
I don't understand your point. It sounds like you are equating actuality
with "possibility". All value is derived from Essence, not existence.
Existence only provides the self/other dichotomy by which value can be
realized by a free agent. The value of existence certainly "matters" to the
agent who perceives it as his reality. In the absence of existence there
would be no cognizant subject to make value aware. Human awareness affords
the means by which the value of Essence can be realized extrinsically (from
an external perspective.) In that sense the human being serves a
teleological purpose as well as its own.
[Joe]
³Possible existence² is Aristotle¹s description of ³intentional existence²
as differentiated from ³existence². IMO The value of existence is order.
[Ham, previously]:
> In this role, the individual is an autonomous agent.
> Subjects and objects are born with the individual.
[Joe]
> As I read the above I ask myself the question.
> Why don¹t I matter? Was the holocaust truly moral
> in deciding a manifestation has no value?
[Ham]
Again, your question confuses me. Like everything else in existence, value
is manifested relationally; it ranges from the most sublime joy or goodness
to the most abhorrent cruelty or evil. "Why don't I matter?" is a non
sequitor question in this context. (My answer is that I am irrevelant in
this context.) You DO matter, whether you suffered in the holocaust, were
born with a deformity, or failed to live a moral life. I believe that the
universe is an amoral system. Thus, it is the individual who determines
what is good or bad in existence, and it is mankind that defines "morality"
as a collective system. Since value sensibility can be corrupt or
irrational, cultural morality can be perceived differently, depending on the
social history of a given culture and the degree of individual freedom
allowed.
[Joe]
The value of dq is the inner experience of the undefined! My inner
experience is disorderly, and I become a victim of the holocaust.
[Ham]
I'm afraid you will have to restate some of these questions in order for me
to fully understand what you mean. Consider this a start toward our mutual
understanding.
Appreciate your interest, Joe.
Essentially yours,
Ham
I hope the restatement does not cause more shadow than light.
Joe
On 2/18/08 11:33 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Joseph --
>
> I'll try to answer your questions, insofar as I understand them, but it may
> require
> further dialogue to narrow them down.
>
>
> [Joe]:
>> Aristotle defined motion as "actus in potentia quantum in potentia".
>> Aristotle defined a word as being an abstracted essence given
>> intentional existence in a mind, to distinguish it from Plato¹s world
>> of ideas. Ham, how can you know an essence without it becoming
>> "actus". The essence becomes itself but different. And then you
>> have the real and intentional division of existence of SOM. The
>> value of existence is entirely denied. You state: "Essence is the
>> potentiality to be but not being itself." Is your essence real or
>> intentional? And if it is real how is it related to the existence of
>> a sentient being? And if intentional, where does the value of
>> existence manifest?
>
> I'm not an Aristotelian, but I take it that the above quotation roughly
> translates to "being is potentiality actualized". I know Aristotle believed
> that all material entities (beings) have the potential for change but to
> realize this potential requires an "efficient cause", such as an artist to
> sculpt a statue from a slab of marble. I'm not sure, however, how you
> distinguish "intentionality" from "potentiality". If your reference is to
> Essence, the meanings are the same. The acts of a sentient being are
> intentional, of course, although its potentiality is limited.
>
> You ask how I can know (an) essence without it become actualized.("actus").
> I cannot "know" Essence directly; I can only assume it intuitively from my
> awareness of its value. However, I do not "actualize" being; I perceive it
> as an "intellectualized construct" of my value sensibility. In my ontology,
> actualization is the potentiality of Essence to separate or divide
> sensibility from otherness (the essent) so that the sensible agent can make
> value aware (as being).
>
>> 1+1=2. The value of one doubled is two. Mathematical
>> calculation is only potential reality, and it can be dismissed
>> in the realm of essence.
>
> Agreed. Logical truth and mathematical values apply only within a
> relational system. In Essence, all differences are unified. Opposites like
> positive and negative, being and nothing, alpha and omega, are essentially
> One.
>
>> IMO S/O refers to internal, external manifestations in
>> human awareness. The essence of a sentient being cannot
>> be only possibility if the value of existence matters.
>
> I don't understand your point. It sounds like you are equating actuality
> with "possibility". All value is derived from Essence, not existence.
> Existence only provides the self/other dichotomy by which value can be
> realized by a free agent. The value of existence certainly "matters" to the
> agent who perceives it as his reality. In the absence of existence there
> would be no cognizant subject to make value aware. Human awareness affords
> the means by which the value of Essence can be realized extrinsically (from
> an external perspective.) In that sense the human being serves a
> teleological purpose as well as its own.
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> In this role, the individual is an autonomous agent.
>> Subjects and objects are born with the individual.
>
> [Joe]
>> As I read the above I ask myself the question.
>> Why don¹t I matter? Was the holocaust truly moral
>> in deciding a manifestation has no value?
>
> Again, your question confuses me. Like everything else in existence, value
> is manifested relationally; it ranges from the most sublime joy or goodness
> to the most abhorrent cruelty or evil. "Why don't I matter?" is a non
> sequitor question in this context. You DO matter, whether you suffered in
> the holocaust, were born with a deformity, or failed to live a moral life.
> I believe that the universe is an amoral system. Thus, it is the individual
> who determines what is good or bad in existence, and it is mankind that
> defines "morality" as a collective system. Since value sensibility can be
> corrupt or irrational, cultural morality can be perceived differently,
> depending on the social history of a given culture and the degree of
> individual freedom allowed.
>
> I'm afraid you will have to restate some of these questions in order for me
> to fully understand what you mean. Consider this a start toward our mutual
> understanding.
>
> Appreciate your interest, Joe.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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/
