[Krimel]:
> It strikes me that what you are trying to do here is reify
> an abstraction. But it also seems circular as I see no
> difference between saying "the power to be" and saying
> "the potential to be" all the substitution does is create
> the illusion that this "power" is a force able effect change
> in the material world.
There is, as you say, no difference between "the power to be" and "
potential to be". But, in case you've forgotten, that was not your
challenge to me. You asked, "What is the difference between potentiality
and possibility?" implying that there is no difference.
Since you are suspicious of quotations offered in explanation, perhaps
you'll consider the dictionary a proper authority for my distinction:
Potentiality -- 1. the ability to develop or come into existence; 2.
potential
Possibility -- 1. the condition or fact of being possible; 2.
something that is possible.
(Note that the potential to come into existence (i.e., create an existent)
is different from the possible condition of that existent once created.)
I'll disregard your "pet peeve" about "throwing in quotes", even though I
thought the statement of the physicsforum guy and Robert Lanza both
demonstrated the point I was trying to make.
> To say that before the big bang there was the potential
> for a big bang is nothing more than a truism. It totally
> misses the mark to sa[y] that potential caused the big bang.
I don't know what "mark" or point you think I've missed, but if a "bang" is
an explosion, it is an interaction of combustible matter and thermal energy,
both of which must exist prior to the event.
[Krimel]:
> Here you once again speak of "an other whose essence
> is the necessity to exist." Nowhere in you thesis or in our
> various conversations have you shown either that such
> "an other" exists or has the necessity to exist. This is one
> of those issues that seem to drive you into silence.
> I wouldn't mind so much if you would stop using the concept.
Again, my cosmology is based on the necessity of a primary source, which you
and Pirsig reject. Because I believe this uncreated source is "essential",
I named it Essence. If I were to stop using the concept, I would be unable
to explain Essentialism. The "other" that exists is of course objective
reality, the "proof" for which is empirical. You claim that I'm "trying to
reify an abstraction", yet Pirsig's Quality is for me much more of an
abstraction than the primary cause, and he made it the very foundation of
his MoQ, equating it with reality. Isn't this criticism somewhat
hypocritical on your part?
> Fire does not bring itself into existence either nor does it
> sustain its own existence. We are just fire that can feed itself.
> What's the big deal?
It's incredulous to me that you can accept existence as it is without
questioning its source or derivation. Must we go back to the initial
premise? Since you like the term, there are only three possibilities: 1)
The universe always existed. 2) The universe arose from nothing. 3) The
universe was created from a primary source. The last of these is the only
one that makes sense to me.
> Potentiality like possibility and probability are statements
> about what "might happen."
Possibilities state what might happen to existents already in place, not to
nothingness. Probability and possibility presupposes beingness.
Potentiality does not.
> But I agree wholeheartedly when Lanza says above,
> "It would be erroneous, therefore, to conceive of the
> mind as existing in space and time before this process,
> as existing in the circuitry of the brain before the
> understanding posits in it a spatio-temporal order."
>
> I read this to mean the mind is what the brain does.
The mind directs the brain to objectivize reality. Lanza means not only
"the mind" but everything else that comprises our conscious image of
reality.
> Statements about our perception of the world do not
> necessarily apply to the world as it is. Personally I think
> we do have experiences "of" the world but our
> experiences are not the world. Unless Lanza has
> more to say about this I don't think what you are quoting
> here contradicts this. Our minds reflect an external
> world. I think you are confusing the world with its reflection.
But the world IS our perception of objective reality.. It is nothing more.
Should the world prove to be something different, it will be because our
perception of it has changed. That's empirical reality, Krimel.
> You would have to provide a specific reference for me
> to evaluate what Cusanus says. But yes I am saying and
> have never deviated from saying that DQ and SQ are
> aspects of Quality. Many here would say the DQ and
> Quality are the same thing. I call this the "DQ heresy."
> Pirsig himself has lent some rather off handed support
> for this heresy. But I think it is an abomination.
"Heresy" is a peculiar chastisement for a philosophy that isn't based on
scripture or dogma. Anyway, as you no doubt regard Essentialism as equally
"abominable", I take some comfort in at least being in good company ;-).
Cheers,
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/
