Ham:
Whoa, fella'! You're racing off far beyond the starting gate when you
say
difference is "composed of...". There is no composition in oneness or
nothingness.
Ron:
They are compositions of logic, of intellectual concepts. Just as much
as
Electrons and atoms.
Ham:
My question about Difference may have been a bit presumptuous,
as it was my devious way of sounding out what you consider the primary
reality, which you allude to later.
Ron:
Primary reality is immediate experience, I follow Pirsig in this regard.
I also agree that intellectual extension beyond this into cosmological
Concepts is a tool for understanding this experience. With this in mind
I and RMP take a physical cosmological approach. A method which bases
It's concepts on observable phenomena rather than intuitive logic.
Ham:
In order for there to be difference --
the proverbial "crack in the cosmic egg" -- there must first be an egg.
But
you're already talking about physical existence as investigated by
science.
Ron:
I think conceptually you view space as a vacuum and I do not. I
Conceptualize space as a fabric. I do not relate the term space with
Nothingness.
Ham:
For this to be a meaningful dialogue, it appears that we'll have to
either
agree or "agree not to agree" on certain fundamentals.
Ron:
I can agree to that. Like I said to Marsha, if your understanding
Works for you then who am I to say that it is wrong? What does
Matter is the free trade of concepts with the openness to evolve
Them. With this in mind, lets talk within the paradigm of Essentialism.
Ham:
let me skip to what you call "the three classical paradoxes". It gives
me
an opportunity to lay out my cosmogeny for your scrutiny.
[Ron]:
> Since we are here on the subject, I must ask if Essentialism
> solves all three of the classic logical paradoxes:
> 1. reconciling a doctrine of causation (similar to the 13th century
> proof of God posed by Thomas Aquinas);
> 2. reconciling the conservation law ("something from nothing");
> 3. reconciling issues of temporal (as in Zeno's paradoxes) and
> logical regression.
Ham:
Yes, I believe it does, although you may not agree.
All three of these so-called paradoxes constitute what is known as the
'Cosmological Argument'. The cosmos is a differentiated system. Hence,
Difference is assumed in causation, ex nihilo nihil fit, and logical
regression, and paradox is an intellectual precept derived from the very
mode of human experience. We are aware of reality as process in time
and
extension in space, and we intellectualize events by the principle of
cause
and effect. This leads to two metaphysical fallacies: 1) that what
appears
in space/time is reality, and 2) that whatever happens is the effect of
a
first cause. I say they are fallacies, because they're entirely based
on
the limited apprehension of the finite subject. .
Why should the ultimate source (absolute reality) be the result or
effect of
something else?
Only because the subjective mind cannot conceive of an "uncreated"
source.
And here's where intuitive logic can extend empirical knowledge. My
cosmogeny is based on the absolute unity of an uncreated Essence which,
on
analysis, turns out to be the antithesis of Nothingness.
In the 15th century Cusanus posited his 'first principle' as the
"coincidence of all contrariety, ...the not-other which is not opposed
to
any other." He had defined the ineffable "uncreated source" as a
logical
proposition 600 years ago and, in my opinion, it has never been
surpassed.
Difference is created (i.e., actualized) by the negation of nothingness,
which produces a sensible nothingness (negate) whose objective
experience is
the value of its estranged Essence. I refer to this division as the
self/other dichotomy, and it accounts for the dualities of "before" and
"after" in time, "here" and "there" in space, "beginning" and "ending"
in
process, "male" and "female" in gender, "good" and "bad" in morality,
"truth" and "falsity" in knowledge, "beauty" and "grossness" in
esthetics,
and all the other contrarieties one encounters in existence.
Okay, the ball is now in your court, Ron. Apart from reminding me that
"I
have no empirical proof" of this source, where does it contradict logic,
Pirsig's cosmogeny (or lack thereof), and your own metaphysical views
(i.e.,
"eternal energy", "fabric substance", etc.)?
Ron:
Somehow it feels like you are cherry picking what aspects of
intellectual
Constructs that best suit your needs to expound Essentialism. You
dismiss
Logical paradox as intellectual constructs yet you utilize the very same
Logic to prove Essentialism. I'm not sure the academic society will let
You get far with that.
It does not contradict Pirsig because he does not find it central.
He places it as one of many intellectual patterns.
My personal feelings are that we all relate to experience uniquely.
Spiritually I believe in the conscious development Of that relationship.
Sincerely
-Ron
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/
