[Bo]:
> SOM (minus "M") is the highest static value so you will not be
> accused (by me at least) for operating from that level's premises,
> it's only when you take its S/O distinction to be reality's ultimate
> ground you are lost.
Ham:
You misquote me. I never said S/O is the ultimate ground of reality. I said
that existence is a dichotomy--a duality, if you will--and an ontology divided
cannot stand as the primary (ultimate) source. Value may be understood to
stand between the contingencies of the dichotomy, connecting man with (his and)
its essential source. But Value requires a sensible agent to be realized, and
so we're back to the dualism again. Hierarchies, levels, and patterns, no
matter how "dynamic" the metaphor used to describe them, do not "overcome"
difference. And existence is a differentiated system.
Ron:
For someone who really doesn't seem to accept an ontology that rejects ontology
you
have a great grasp at whats at stake, but where do you derrive the notion of an
ultimate
source, if not via rationality? O' Parmenides! no matter the metaphor used to
describe
anything it does not overcome anything either, wether source nor difference..
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/
