Hi Ham 21 Feb.you wrote condescendingly:
> "Reality isn't anything at all before an ordering of it." (?) My dear > Bo, that defies even metaphysical logic and doesn't dignify your > intellect. I know you are familiar with the 'ex nihilo' principle. > What am I to make of this cosmology? Surely you're not suggesting that > Nothing contains a "something" that gives rise to an "order". At this "level" we are at the end of our tethers. At least the gist of it all is that a chaotic dynamic nothingness precedes the ordred, static somethingness. If anything is indignified it's my intelligence . My intellect (level) subscribes to your cognizant subect/incognizant world cosmology > I'm saying simply that Nothingness has no order and no agent to do the > ordering. So, if your DQ is really nothing, where does the "ordering" > -- the divisons or levels -- come from? I think your "agent" runs into ontological trouble if pursued to the said heights. > Please don't get historical on me again! What "people of old" knew or > said is irrelevant to the fundamental reality we're discussing. It > doesn't take a stroke of genius to realize that we exist in a > differentiated world, and it's something short of genius to divide > existence into four levels when it is evident that the division is > binary, i.e. between Self and Other, Awareness and Beingness. A metaphysics worth is name must include the past's in its greater view. Newton's physics did so with Greek physics, Copernicus ditto regarding Ptolemaian cosmology and the MOQ does so with the SOM-induced enigmas and also the pre-SOM (social in its scheme) existence's shortcomings. By the way have you ever told how Essentialism resolves the mind/matter paradox?. > "Known forces" are gravity, energy, power, pressure, inertia, > momentum, elasticity, and electro-motive. Inorganic, Biological, > Social, and Intellectual are not "forces". They are one author's > arbitrary classification of natural (experiential) process. But, > again, nothing can come from nothingness. There can be no force, > pattern, or process in the absence of a fundamental source. I repeat. There are four basic forces: the strong and weak nuclear, the electro-magnetic and gravity. These make for the basic inorganic "interactions" (the famous GUT [grand unification theory] has the three first secured, but gravity refuses) I did not say that the levels are forces (Ham's will to NOT listen), but as the levels builds on top of each other, inorganic is the deepest fundament of them all. > That fundamental source is what I call Essence. You may call it > Dynamic Quality or Intellect, Why this "intellect" you constantly ascribe some special role in (my) MOQ? . > but it must possess the potentiality for at least the appearance of > things if it is to account for the emergence of a differentiated > universe. I believe nothingness has the potentiality for everything. Bo 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/
