----- Original Message -----
From: "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] logic of Essentialism
Ron:
I thought the "loop hole" characterized your theory rather well,
through contradiction infinite possibility arises. Traditionally the
principle of explosion is used to destroy an argument but in the
use I propose, it creates one. It is rather unconventional but it
does describe your theory in classic terms.
Your knack for reducing a metaphysical concept to a logical proposition is
fascinating. I've been calling the ground of existence Difference, and
the power to negate Difference the potentiality of Essence. But, except
for Cusa's first principle, I've never been able to formulate this in
strictly logical terms.
I must say, however, that I'm now wary of logic. For if there's a logic
to make anything reasonable or valid, what's the point of logical
analysis? If by the "principle of explosion" anything is
possible--including the concurrent existence of A and Not A, why isn't
this a violation of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction? And which law
takes precedence here? It would appear that one can support equivocation
simply by basing it on the right logic. What am I missing here?
That's the beauty of the logic I propose, it describes this rather well
in terms of logical consistency. Most folks think analytically and when
they try to understand what you are saying they get confused by the
apparent contrariety in your statements.
Who, then, thinks synthetically, and how do average folks know the
difference, even when stated by the author? I tend to believe that most
intelligent people can recognize an illogical statement when they see it
without resorting to formal analysis.
For example, I doubt that Pirsig actually reduced his theory to the
equation Quality = Experience = Reality. Yet, that's the way his concept
has been interpreted, and we see this equation frequently in these posts.
Would you call that interpretation a "synthesis" or an "analysis"?
I think your best avenue is the assertion of synthetic argument
through the destruction of analytic initially then re-assert it as an
emergence of value awareness through the "complementarity"
dichotomy. Then when you state "But inasmuch as it is the
experience of this self that constructs the objectivized universe,"
you can then use this as an explaination for analytics too.
THEN when someone knocks you for circular contradictory
logic you can say "not so" I am making a synthetic argument
for analytical thought.
Ron, if the truth be told, people typically reject an idea outright,
irrespective of logic, if it is associated with an ideology they despise.
They'll dismiss it on the ground that it is "theistic" or "right wing" or
"made up". You see this gut reaction all the time. "It doesn't smell
right", "he's hallucinating", "it's talk radio garbage". I'm not an
analyst and may be naive, but I take the position that words and language
are secondary to the concept presented. Only a person who is receptive
to a new concept will be discerning enough to critique it analytically.
I'm trying to reach that kind of person, one who is willing to consider
the concept long enough to comprehend it. If there are some flaws in my
logic, I can re-express the concept to correct or circumvent them.
However, I shall consider your advice and see how I can implement it in
the future.
But, concerning Cusa's 'not-other', which you seem willing to discuss,
here's how Clyde Miller of Stony Brook U. formalized this theory as a
logical proposition:
"For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than
not X. What is unique about the divine not other is precisely that it is
not other than either X or not X ('cannot be other than'-'is not opposed
to anything'). The transcendent not-other thus undercuts both the
principles of non-contradiction and of the excluded middle."
I wrote to the professor, but he never kept his promise to get back to me.
I think this theory has profound implications for metaphysical
development. Inasmuch as I've based my ontology on this principle, I'm
most interested in hearing your take on it.
Many thanks,
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/
