Marsha and Platt --
[Marsha]:
Which reality would that be, the inorganic reality, the biological reality, the social reality, the intellectual reality or the code of art reality? The "absolute reality is a solid block of concrete" analogy sounds absurd. According to the MOQ reality is value/process/experience.
[Platt]:
I have trouble imagining a solid block of concrete without boundaries because it is boundaries that make it possible to conceptualize blocks and solids. I think in essence (no pun intended}, your theory says from one comes many, or from a whole comes parts. No argument there.
There is no question that the concept of a concrete block as ultimate reality is absurd. I used the analogy of a monolith to make Essence more tangible to the materialistic mind. And, unlike Marsha, for whom reality is apparently a tetrad, I view reality as one monolithic absolute. (If there were four realities, none of them could be absolute.)
Platt's reverse take on 'E pluribus unum', "from one comes many" is technically correct but suggests no means of transition. The point I was trying to make is that there is no division without nothingness. Since all existence is divided, it is a multiplistic system in which nothingness is the differentiator. I've defined nothingness as an "agent" of creation, which has caused consternation on the part of logicians who challenge me with the 'ex nihilo' principle.
Indeed, nothing comes from nothing, in the sense that nothingness cannot generate the essence of a thing (essent). But, given the potentiality to be (which is essence), nothingness delineates, abstracts, or patterns the essent to actualize discrete entities (i.e., beings and events). This patterning or abstraction of objective otherness is of course the work of the intellect which, in turn, produces the images or impressions we call experience. To what extent is this process "creation"?
I maintain that we are all working off our individual sensibilities to Value. But we don't "create" value, we only objectivize it. Value-sensibility is the essence of awareness represented in the objects experienced. Is THAT "creation"? As a phenomenalist I find it just as difficult to pin creation down as it is for the MoQists to peg the intellect. I'm left with to conclude that what is created is only the "appearance" of reality, which is the result of difference, which is a negation or "reduction" of Essence as opposed to something "added".
That's why (like Sartre) I say that experiential reality is riddled with nothingness, and I can only speculate that we ourselves are its source. Perhaps that's what Eckhart meant when he said, "To create is to give being out of nothing."
Any thoughts? Thanks for your inputs, 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/
