Hi Platt --
Please excuse me for not being able to fully understand
your reply. I have trouble following the meanings of "sensibility,"
"absoluteness," and then the combination "absolute sensibility."
Be that as it may, I take it your answer is, "Yes. Since it
includes sensibility it can know itself. Further, it was known
only to itself until it created sensible agents. Now we agents
can know it primarily through aesthetic experience."
Is this interpretation anywhere near your view?
Yes, and your difficulty with these terms demonstrates the limitations of
language in expressing abstract concepts. Trying to come up with the best
term is a constant challenge for me. For example, Ron has now persuaded me
that the term "mutually exclusive" as applied to a dichotomy means that
either contingency can stand alone. Further research indicates that the
proper term for the relationship of Being and Awareness (as I define it) is
"dichotomy of complementarity."
Keep in mind that any essential attribute is absolute in Essence. There are
no divisions, before/afters, or others in Essence. So that "absolute
sensibility", like "absolute 'is-ness', is one and the same as absolute
Essence.
Sorry I was not as succinct in answering your second question. Part of the
problem is not knowing what lies behind the words of the question. I have
to ask myself, am I giving him precisely what he wants to know?
But I'm pleased that you're keeping the book handy as a reference. (I
should check it out more often to assure that I'm consistent in my
explanations.)
Thanks, Platt
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/
