[Ham] You can state a definition as many times and with all the feeling you want, but it won't make empty space become something. This is really a silly argument that misses the point of "primary source" (i.e., genesis), as opposed to "first cause" (i.e., the start of temporality).
[Krimel] Aside from your overall confusion about a point so central to your "philosophy", there is no "empty space" as you fantasize it to be. Each point of space is bathed in light, electromagnetic radiation, heat and gravitational fields. Nothingness accommodates none of these. This "silly argument" does not miss the point of a "primary source as opposed to first cause." It dismisses it. [Ham] You speak of space and time as if they were inherent attributes of reality. Space/time is the dimensional mode of experience; temporality and extension frame the phenomena we experience as existents in a multiplicity universe. Existence is the appearance of finite objects and events in process. This is an attribute of the self/other dichotomy, not reality; it's being-aware in the world. [Krimel] Again this is a central point that you are utterly confused about. It is not possible for you to suggest a "point of view" that sets aside space/time as optional. They are inherent in any description of existence. This stuckness in space/time does not go away because you believe you can imagine some other godlike perspective. Thomas Nagel makes a similar argument against this kind of thinking in "What it's like to be a Bat." We can imagine 'ourselves' to be bats. We can extrapolate our sensibilities onto a bat. But we can not know what it feels like for a bat to be a bat. Even to approximate such of line of thinking in the way you do requires a more sophisticated understanding of space/time than you bring to the task. It requires a more sophisticated understanding of human sensation and perception than you bring to the task. [Ham] Sure, your "Big Bang" theory is in "accord with the universe as it is understood" by Science. [Krimel] It is not my theory. It is the theory acknowledged by the best minds in the field. [Ham] But when a philosopher bases his ontogeny on Science, he forfeits any metaphysical theory he might otherwise have developed. [Krimel] Since ontogeny is the study of how an individual comes into existence you are darn straight I look to science to explain the reproductive process. If the price is that I have to forfeit a confused view of metaphysics, I am glad to pay it. [Ham] The birth of space/time occurs with our becoming aware as a cognizant organism. The "big bang" that created you was an act performed by your parents, not a cataclysmic event that occurred 14 billion years ago. Likewise, creation is not a causal chain; it's the negated, actualized aspect of Essence experienced by an individuated subject. [Krimel] We enter space/time at birth but it does not spring into being as we are born. [Ham] Ex nihilo nihit fit is a logical principle that is central to all metaphysical hypothesis. [Krimel] It is just a statement like all swans are white. When we actually observe particles popping in and out of existence in a vacuum like ittisy bittsy black swans we might oughta rethink the centrality of this position. [Ham] If you want to understand existence as a space/time system, become an astrophysicist or study the evolution of nature. But don't preach scientism to a philosopher whose reality transcends the time and space of finite existence. [Krimel] And you fancy yourself to be "philosopher whose reality transcends the time and space of finite existence," do you? Grandiose and delusional all in one breath. You do not "transcend space and time" simply by declaring them optional. You are merely enjoying the bliss of your ignorance about them. 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/
