Hi Ham/Krim What I think this sort of debate needs is to talk about how experience involves dealing with real practical situations, problems and learning processes. Margaret Archer a philosopher of sociology and a major figure incritical realism, points us in this direction in her little essay:
http://www.journalofcriticalrealism.org/archive/JCR(A)v5n1_archer11.pdf David M >> [Krimel] >> I think the problem I have is this notion of possibility without >> limits which is what I take Ham's absolute potential to mean. >> This would allow for a universe where two things occupy >> the same space at the same time or where 6=9. Even if you >> allow for a multiverse in which different universes are allowed >> to evolve from differing sets of physical laws each set of such >> laws defines or sets limits on what is possible within it. > > [Ham] > First, to clarify my position, I have defined Essence (for causative > purposes) as absolute potentiality, not absolute "possibility". > Possibility > is not a creative agent, and entities do not create themselves. Nothing > is > possible without the potential to be. Potentiality is the source of all > differentiated entities. It is actualized as contrariety of beingness > whose > primary contingency is the self/other dichotomy, and it is manifested in > the > polarity of being/nothingness, time/space, subject/object, male/female, > true/false, good/bad. etc. > > [Krimel] > What is the difference between potentiality and possibility and how does > potential become 'causal' and creative? > > [Ham] > Secondly, in existence (i.e., S/O experience) order and configuration are > the subject's sensory-intellectual construct of Value which is the > difference between subject and object. Since it is the subject whose > logical and mathematical precepts determine the order of physical reality, > the world can never violate the "possible" parameters set by the > subjective > intellect. This does not mean than Potentiality is "limited", but only > that the universe as constructed by consciousness is consistent with the > range of possibility perceived by the "constructor". > > The bottom line is that the statistics of probability analysis define your > intellectual precept rather than the fundamentals of reality. > > [Krimel] > Saying that we build an inner representation of our experience is not the > same as "constructing" something. Determining what the order of physical > reality is, is not that same as determining 'that' it is. What you are > talking about here may apply to subjective understanding but has nothing > whatever to do with the physical world and the rules that apply to it. > 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/
