Squonk --
[Ham, previously]:
Both arguments assume an "elevation of experience to a Cosmic principle", which an Essentialist would reject.
[Squonk]:
I appreciate this has to be the Essentialist case Ham. But i think my argument is dismissed out of hand for a reason which may become clear. You employ logic in an attempt to justify one of its postulates. I don't think this can work. For example, i find the logical proofs of the existence of God rather poor.
I employ logic because you presented me with a logical syllogism. Obviously you were asking me to affirm or deny that the two parallel arguments led to a logical conclusion.
[Ham, previously]:
Having said that, I don't believe any philosopher or moralist can "identify the shared experience of excellence" or any other moral quality [#1].
[Squonk]:
Utilitarian ethics does just this: It observes Human happiness to be the good and then postulates methods of maximising it. Utilitarianism may be problematic, but the attempt is made.
Utilitarianism is the principle of scientific objectivism and is based on the premise that truth and goodness equates to "what works". Philosophy cannot make such assumptions because intuitive or intellectual concepts are not empirically verifiable. For example, you can't put into practice or test the theory that God is Good or that the universe is moral.
[Ham, previously]:
As for proposition #3, I don't understand the meaning of "identified" as applied to "intellectual discourse".
[Squonk]:
I used the word discourse because thinkers communicate within and across cultural communities of other thinkers who inform their intellectual thought processes. I'm suggesting that within this process you may have identified a common concern in the discourse of metaphysics, specifically with regard to causation, which may be regarded as a Cosmic principle.
Causation is an intellectual interpretation of temporal experience, not a Cosmic principle. If man did not experience reality as a continuum of events, cause-and-effect would be meaningless. .
[Ham, previously]:
Hume is right that man's understanding of God is extrapolated from finite concepts, and any descriptive interpretation of the ineffable source is invalid.
[Squonk]:
Or is it? The complete lack of light on a dark cloudless night in the middle of the country may be an example of a finite experience of the ineffable which could be extrapolated to infinity. This may then be used as a postulation or axiom from which to derive differentiation as experienced in light.
Again, light and darkness are visual manifestations of essential value, not an experience of God or the ineffable. Since all experience is differentiated and relational, any "cosmic" phenomenon relates to existence and cannot be attributed to the undifferentiated source. The most direct proof we have for Essence is its Value, but even this is experienced differentially.
What do you make of the 'total darkness' metaphor: The uncreated source of your Essence is outside (dark) logic (light)?
Contrariety is the nature of experiential existence. "Coming into the light from darkness" is a metaphor for intellectual enlightenment, as is the maxim "Some things are better." Darkness and light, being and nothingness, here and there, now and then, big and small, joy and pain, birth and death, order and chaos, triteness and magnificence -- they all manifest the polarity and difference of negation. Only the uncreated source is free of difference, and no aspect of existence is identifiable with Essence.
If you read my references to Cusanus' First Principle, you'll see that he posits the undifferentiated source as "the coincidence of all contrariety", which he called the Not-other. I truly believe this defines Essence as well as any metaphysical postulate conceived since the 15th century.
I'm pleased that you are reviewing my thesis, and commend you for keeping an open mind toward unfamiliar concepts This can't help but be productive for all of us.
Essentially yours, 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/
