Ron:
The fact that logic is used to communicate in understandable
terms it is not a method of determining absolute truth. A true
statement is one which applies to experience, which is
ultimately subjective, if there is a consensus agreement to
.your statements of experience then for all intent and purpose
they are "true".
Yes, I understand the difference between subjective concepts that can't be
proved, and objective facts that are experienced as "truths". I also
realize that intuited or intellectually developed concepts do not "prove"
anything, no matter how well formulated the logic is.
People understand synthetically, (art, poetry literature) but
they reason analytically by virtue of our culture and language.
Okay.
[Ham, previously]:
Quality = Experience = Reality. ...
Would you call that a "synthesis" or an "analysis"?
[Ron]:
I would call it a deductive inference validated synthetically.
Sounds good -- almost logical, in fact ;-).
Language is our window to our concepts; if that window
is dirty or fragmented it does not portray the concept
accurately, all we deal with here is language, consequently
our conceptions are formed by it.
That's a great analogy, and you'd make an exemploray teacher. However, I
don't agree that "all we have to deal with is language." Intuition is not
limited to language and conceptualization is an abstractive or synthesizing
process involving forms, images, feelings, agencies, relations, and reason.
I started my metaphysical reasoning by contemplating nothingness for days at
a time, until I got a firm grasp of what it meant. Language had no part in
this conceptualizing process until I began to express it in words.
When I asked for your take on the 'Not-other' principle, you gave an
epistemological analysis, relating its logical "advantages" to the
tretralemma:
Exactly what the principle of explosion does for you and the
meaning of the tetra lemma, the divine may not be described,
it may only be experienced. Experience is not a logical
proposition it simply 'is".
Cusanus knew that the divine source was indescribable, which is what is so
rematkable about his first principle. The indefinableness of God rules out
any definite proposition about the Divine essence. Any such proposition
will necessarily impose a limitation which is incompatible with
absoluteness. "Not-other" avoids attributive description while affording a
usable symbolic representation for the ineffable that is both
non-oppositional and non-restrictive. In my philosophy, it makes all
difference 'negational' while maintaining the absolute intrgrity of Essence.
What I really wanted was not an analysis or a comparison with some other
theory, but a personal evaluation. Specifically, does Cusa's logic help in
relating Absolute Essence to Differentiated Existence, and is it a
reasonable basis for my philosophy? I might also ask, Can we "deductively
infer" from it that Essence is negational?
If you've read Hegel's philosophy, you may be acquainted with his theory
that Appearance is the negation of the negation of Being, whereas Actuality
is the negation of the negation of Essence. I don't know if Hegel was
familiar with Cusan logic or the Tetralemma, but I've borrowed his idea of
the "double-negation" in my creation ontogeny. I've also quoted from the
Israeli art critic Tsion Avitol (Marsha's reference), who in an essay on
Assymetry wrote, in part:
"The wonder of Creation is perhaps the wonder of the creation of negation.
Everything else is derived from it. The first verses of Genesis describe
the first distinctions that God made, which are also the creation of the
first complementary pairs: heaven-earth, light-darkness, etc., but no
distinction is possible without negation, and negation and double negation
therefore preceded all distinctions that followed. For the same reason
complementarity too, which was generated by negation, preceded the
complementary pairs that were created. Actually, the first Asymmetry, which
according to the Big Bang theory is the moment of creation, could not be
without negation. ...Not only is epistemology impossible without negation
and double negation, but neither is ontology possible without this
mindprint. That is to say, there is no Being at all levels without its
complementary opposite, nonbeing or nothingness. In both cases, in the
noetic world and also in the material world, negation creates otherness: it
splits unity and simplicity and thus creates diversity and complexity."
--T. Avital, Mindprints 3: http://www.mi.sanu.ac.yu/
Okay, now you're into it, liike it or not! You initiated this thread, Ron,
thank you. The ball is now in your court.
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/
