Bo (Krimel mentioned) --
I see you have a debate going on with Krimel about what constitutes a
"fundamental dualism". It's interesting to me that he views I/thou as a
duality but not self/other, whereas you see contrarieties such as peaks and
valleys, heads and tails, and positive and negative as "monisms". I'd like
to comment further on that, but I owe you this reply to the last post you
sent to me.
Language is my favorite example to show the dead end of a
"man the measure" postulate. I said that it's 100% valid because
one may argue 'til one is blue in face yet it's impossible to avoid
the fact that even the argument about language is conveyed by
language. The fact that language belongs to "man" is equally solid
as it is that this is only deeper into the blind alley. It's not until you
postulate a Language or Man metaphysics with the same layout
as the MOQ the wall at the end of the alley opens up.
I don't see why the use of language to convey concepts nullifies
Protagoras's maxim, or how it is even relevant. Mark Turner, writing on
"The Nature and Ontogenesis of Meaning" says this about what the author
implied by "man is the measure of all things":
"...when the Attic philosopher Protagoras proposed that man is the measure
of all things, he offered a design for a theory of meaning. The distinctive
character of any theory of meaning congruent with this design is its
conception of meaning not as a static property external to human beings but
rather as an aspect of dynamic human thought grounded in human nature."
It might be well to keep this in mind, as it also applies to the meaning of
Truth and Value.
[Bo, previously]:
[Y]our fallacy is to start from SOM's "man" (as owner of the mind
where all is) IMO "man" like "language" and/or "mind" must be
omitted, because it can be proved without a hitch that "all is" these
three entities and aa such is completely stale
When I asked you why you would want to omit the mind from ontology...
Why on earth do you want to eliminate the conscious mind
of man? Where would we be--culturally, socially,
scientifically, morally--without individual awareness?
...you replied:
... or a Metaphysics of Consciousness, or of Mind. What the
innermost, deepest, essential reality is, isn't important. What counts
is the Dynamic/Static distinction. Yet when this is said I must add
that Quality is best because it give direction to the static evolution.
I strongly disagree. Ontology is a theory of existence, including the
fundamental principles and relations of 'beingness'. Dagobert Runes
describes ontology as "the science of the essence of things." We can't
logically posit distinctions about something if we don't know what it is.
If we intend to get to the bottom of reality, whether in terms of the MoQ,
SOL or MoE, we must at the very least have a concept of its nature. And
what does your assertion that "Quality is best because it gives direction to
evolution" mean, apart from suggesting a teleology of Nature?
So if your Essentialism is laid out along the dynamic/static split
with the static essence levels of which the inorganic is the first
and the intellectual the last I'm your man.
As you know, I have an aversion to Pirig's irregular use of "static" and
"dynamic".
Whatever you believe to be the primary source of existence, it is not
"dynamic" in any sense until the "split" or "differentiation" occurs. (I
realize this is in direct opposition to Pirsig's DQ/SQ thesis, and I'm sorry
about that, but I can't in good conscience accept terminology that
contradicts my own metaphysical thesis.) As far as I'm concerned,
"inorganic" and "intellectual" have the same meaning as "matter or being"
and "mind or awareness", respectively. Since existence for me is
'being-aware', which is a dichotomy, "first" and "last" are meaningless.
The contingencies of this dichotomy are mutually exclusive and co-dependent
in actualizing existence -- then, now, and for all time. So, I'm afraid
you're not my man -- at least not yet, Bo.
[Bo, on the "MoQ paralysis" assertion]:
The paralysis is due to the "Reality=Quality" postulate -
with the MOQ an arbitrary theory - instead of the
"Reality=MOQ" one. What [are] your essentials?
If you're asking me to name my fundamentals, here's how I summarize them in
the first paragraph of my FAQs page:
"Essentialism is uniquely predicated on the concept of a sensible Essence
that encompasses all as a 'not-other' to itself. The metaphysics replaces
Cartesian dualism with an undifferentiated Primary Source whose negation of
nothingness divides being (essent) from awareness (negate) to actualize the
dichotomy being-aware. The negate may be regarded as a 'microcosm' of
Absolute Sensibility in that it is value-awareness. As the autonomous agent
of value, the negate assumes organic identity and creates the appearance of
finitude by affirming the value of its complementary essent to become aware.
Psychically separated from Absolute Essence, the individual is born into a
world of dynamic 'beingness' that is largely of his own creation. This
makes man a cognizant creature with limited understanding but capable of
exquisite sensibility of the values experienced in an objective reality.
Although he does not sense Essence directly, Value underlies all experience
and represents man's timeless connection with his essential Source."
That, in a nutshell, is the essence of Essentialism.
No doubt it will raise some questions.
Thanks, Bo
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/
