----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's
Krimel --
While I await your theory of "energy transduction" as it applies to
Quality and/or Value, I'll try to mediate your "vigorous disagreement that
we have a 'sense of Essence, the uncreated non-existent source of
existence'." Since neither of us can offer "proof" of our respective
ontologies, I don't expect to change your view, but will offer a plausible
argument for my reasoning that may make more sense to you.
What reason can you give for suspecting the existence
of an uncreated Absolute unchanging source or whatever
it is you are evasively calling God?
I start with the premise that nothing comes from nothing, 'ex nihilo
nihil fit', which is attributed to Parmenides and is the basis for the
theory of first cause. Since experience tells us that everything in
existence had a beginning, including the experiencing subject, we have no
reason to assume that physical reality, or the energy of which it is
composed, has always existed. Cognizant beings and things do not create
themselvces. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the appearance
of finitude (what we call "existence") is the result of creation. If man
and his universe are created, then it is also reasonable to assume a
Creator.
Greetings Ham,
Does 'experience' tell us anything other than its value is good, bad, or
neutral? Even the idea that an experience has a beginning, a middle and an
end is a part of the 'designs by us' process, a process where experiences
get reified and define into recognizable patterns.
Marsha
Now, because it is unfashionable in our "enlightened" age to acknowledge
the possibility of a creator, postmodernists have bent over backwards to
come up with theories from the Big Bang to "parallel universes" in order
to discredit or mythologize this notion. Pirsig has attained some success
in establishing DQ as the source of reality, but his aversion to theism
and his avoidance of metaphysical definitions have not helped his cause.
By contrast, the essentialist view of Creation is based on a primary
source that is absolute and immutable, which means it has no boundaries or
divisions and is not subject to the conditions of space/time causality.
Essence is not an 'existent", so technically it doesn't "exist", in the
same sense that "nothingness" doesn't exist. However, Essence is the
antithesis of nothingness. My ontology is supported by Cusan logic. The
15th century neoplatonist logician and astronomer Cusanus argued that,
although God is indefinable, it can be stated that the world is not God
but is not anything _other_ than God. God is 'not other', he said,
because God is not other than any (particular) other, even though
'not-other' and 'other' (once derived) are opposed. But no other can be
opposed to God from whom it is derived. The Cusan 'First Principle' --
not-other is the coincidence of all contrariety -- rules out Divine Being,
anthropomorphic deities, or any external entity as a causitive ource or
creator.
In fact, Cusanus left us with a workable definition for the ineffable
Source whose attributive nature is otherwise indefinable. Possibility and
actuality, he said, are co-dependent in existence but coincide in the
non-contradictory Source-ultimate reality in which opposites like
'positive and negative', 'subject and object', and 'being and nothing' are
not mutually exclusive but equivalent. In the Oneness of Essence, all
difference is eliminated. There is no "other" for Essence because Essence
itself is not other. Moreover, because the ultimate source transcends
both differentiation in space and change in time, it IS absolutely. That
is to say, Essence is primary, absolute and uncreated, whereas any
created thing (essent) is reductively derived as a "secondary"
manifestation of Essence.
I have outlined a hypothesis for creation in my website which you probably
won't read. But insofar as you question my reasons "for suspecting an
absolute source"', this is the best I can do in this limited space.
Meantime, I look forward to learning more about your energy-transducing
ontogeny (epistemology?) when you have the time.
Regards,
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/
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/
