Ham. 24 Feb. wrote:
> Sadly you disappoint me. I thought you had it all figured out, and > that your SOL was the metaphysical explanation. What will NOT disappoint you short of prostrating oneself ? > What you are summarizing is physical (objective) existence, not > ultimate Reality...... When talking about "nature" my focus is at the intellectual level. MOQ's meta-level is for the ultimate view, no place to dwell permanently. > [Bo]: > > Why this "intellect" you constantly ascribe some > > special role in (my) MOQ? > I assume intellect has a special role because you constantly single it > out as "fundamental". For example: 2/17:"My definition of intellect > (in case of language) is "the fundamental split between the concept and > the reality conceptualized". As said to Andre one hopes that one's utterings will be understood, but alas. Here I describes intellect's own - internal - view. It regards everything through its S/O glasses and as said in case of language it manifests in concepts=subjective/what it conceptualizes= objective. Get it? > Evidently you believe that something can come from nothing. According to fractional geometry every possible form emanates from nothing, or from Chaos if that sounds better. > .. Tell me, Bo, is it more logical to ascribe potentiality to > nothingness than to Absolute Essence? I'm amazed that someone with your > intellect could come to that conclusion. I regard Essence as another name for the dynamic source of everything and have already placed you in the same position as young Phaedrus, but - alas - who wants to be placed in positions or compared to someone else? In this camp there are only chiefs, no Indians. . 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/
