> [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.
[Ham]
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.)
[Krimel]
Ok I see the distinction but it does not address my criticism that you are
attempting to reify an abstraction. To say that something has the potential
to come into existence does not refer to 'potential' having the power to
"create an existent" it is a statement about existing conditions that would
allow something to come to pass. As in a fertilized has the potential to
become a mature adult. Or global warming has the potential to end
civilization. Or Hillary Clinton has the potential to be elected president.
These are statements about existing conditions that could bring about future
states of affairs.
You seem to be saying that potential in and of itself has the power to
effect change rather than being a mere description of antecedent conditions.
But perhaps that is not what you mean. Feel free to correct me.
> {Krimel]
> 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.
[Ham]
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]
You have made statements like this in the past and I thought you were
joking. Do yourself a favor and never say anything like this again. There
are plenty of resources available for you educate yourself on this subject.
Since cosmology is what you say you are doing I have assumed that you knew
something about it. This statement shows you do not. I am working very hard
not to be rude here but you should be embarrassed.
[Ham]
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?
[Krimel]
In case you haven't noticed I am hardly one of Pirsig's cheerleaders. For
example I find his views on evolution only slightly more enlightened than
yours. But Pirsig does not present Quality as a source in the sense of a
creator. I personally don't think SQ or DQ exist as things or forces. I
would characterize Quality as a noun in the sense that a particular
perception is a noun but SQ and DQ are adjectives. I also think the MoQ is
totally about the individual's construction of an inner reality and has
almost nothing to do with TiTs.
I do appreciate the first part of your comments here though. It sounds to me
like a frank admission that your entire philosophy is designed to justify a
preexisting conclusion. It confirms that what you are doing is not
philosophy but apologetics. You see the necessity for a primary source but
can not say why.
It reminds me of Raygun who was frequently heard to say in a tone of
superior self satisfaction, "I just happen to believe..." followed by some
absurdity. It was as though his beliefs "just happened". There was no reason
for them or to them, they "just happened" like gas pains.
My advice on this matter stands. By the way you still have never answered;
what denomination are you?
[Ham]
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.
[Krimel]
I guess what is reality at issue is the approach one would take to answering
such a question. I think the worst possible approach would be to decide on
the answer and reason backwards.
[Ham]
Possibilities state what might happen to existents already in place, not to
nothingness. Probability and possibility presupposes beingness.
Potentiality does not.
[Krimel]
Well, no. Potential as I outlined above is also a statement about
preexisting conditions. Nothing is nothing. It is the absence of potential.
You work very hard to turn nothing into something but it just doesn't fly.
> [Krimel]
> 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.
[Ham]
The mind directs the brain to objectivize reality. Lanza means not only
"the mind" but everything else that comprises our conscious image of
reality.
[Krimel]
Here you are still only talking about the inner workings of the brain not
anything external to it. What comprises our conscious images is a reflection
or transduction of physical energy into electro-chemical activity.
[Ham]
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.
[Krimel]
Again this is a description of internal states. It says nothing whatever
about an external world.
[Ham]
"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 ;-).
[Krimel]
I use the term with intentional irony. When applied to 'Essentialism' I
intend far less irony.
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/
