Ron, I was accusing myself of pedandtry, in bothering to argue on something I'd already said was meaningless, not you. You amused me.
I agree the first cause debate does get summed up by that "slogan". But I think I've said enough words about something that is just not interesting, to a pragmatist, even a very thoughtful one. Wrong debate. I was just brushing it aside as a slogan. I think there is something in pre-existent void as formless, with SQ possibilties popping into existence and SQ patterms evolving to preserving the useful forms ... none of which will ever satisfy the kind of first-causist who wants his first-cause to be the right one - the winner in an argument. Clearly you are not one of those. Ian On 3/3/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian: > Thanks Ron, :-) > > If I was a pedant, I might say it was a second or third-hand English > translation from Latin, via Arabic, of something Parmenides said. But > I'm not, so I won't. > > Ron; > Sorry if I came off pedantry (had to look that one up!) > But I think a lot of what is being discussed is applicable > To Parmenides concepts. Especially Hams views. > > Ian: > We would then end up debating what he meant by > nothing, each time he used whatever word(s) he used, and whatever the > context was. Without that, it's still a slogan, albeit, Parmenides > slogan. > > Ron: > This has come to mind for me, is nothing DQ? Without pattern? > Does void mean vacuum or does it mean formless? Ham as Parmenides > States that it is static but I find this does not account for change. > Now if void means formless then this leaves the door open for change > For all levels of SQ, but if Essence is absolute and static until > Sensed, it does not account for change on the inorganic level. > reality then is the property of living organisms which does not > account for in organic freedom of value. This is where I believe > Quality trumps Ham and Parmenides. > > Ian: > To avoid sleepless nights I find the best answer to how something came > from nothing, is to say whatever it was always existed. (There was no > first cause, existence just is .... time and causation are weirder > than common sense suggests ... but as I say, the first-cause question > has no interesting answer, it can only be the subject of theory, as > Ham agrees, again.) > > Ron: > I can do nothing but agree. > > > > > > > > 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/
