Bo --
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.
Indeed, we are most fortunate if we can dwell there at all.
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?
The "internal view" is the only view we have. It is manifested in experience and is called subjective awareness. Intellect enters the picture to form concepts from experiential (objective) knowledge, and concepts are conveyed via language. Are you getting what I'M saying?
According to fractional geometry every possible form emanates from nothing, or from Chaos if that sounds better.
I don't see how fractional geometry applies to ontogeny, or why one would attempt to explain creation through the use of numbers. The degree of "chaos" or order perceived in the universe is a function of the observer's sensibility to symmetry, patterns, and the logic of causality. Like morality, these existential attributes represent our valuistic and intellectual proclivities or predispositions. In my view, experience "equals" reality in the sense that it actualizes beingness from Value.
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.
I don't mind being compared to Phaedrus, or an Indian, provided that the measure of comparison (in this case, the ontology) is accurately expressed. And I'm not convinced that you understand my metaphysical position well enough to make such a comparison. For instance, you've characterized me as an SOMist, dismissing my transcendent source as a "level at the end of our tethers." Yet, you are not averse to such a source if it is conceived as "dynamic". (I don't suppose absolute immutable Essence would qualify as a dynamic source.)
Anyway, until you make a distinction between Existence and Essence, you will never transform the MoQ thesis into a legitimate metaphysical concept.
IMO. Regards, 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/
