Says Krimel:
Here is an example of Hamish making the idiotic sound profound. "Ultimate reality" is a meaningless concept. Perhaps that is what attracts you to it. It can mean whatever you like.
I disagree. We are ALL attracted to ultimate reality; it is the source of Value.
Therefore, ultimate reality cannot be a meaningless concept.
Locus is not a power. It doesn't have a power. There is no power in locus nor a power of locus. I have no idea why you think the term potentiality can be applied to "ultimate reality".
I disagree. Localization is the placement of human beings and objects in space and time. It's a function of differentiated existence whereby the universe is an ordered system. Since nothing can come from nothing, the ordered universe has a primary source, the power or potentiality of which is to actuate and configure experiential existence.
Whatever "ultimate reality" is must be beyond mere potential. "Absolute sensibility" is another fantasy term. Would that be something like Dr. Manhattan? Any term derived from the root "sense" must refer to some organ of sensation. No organ of sensation or combination of such organs can absorb all of the properties of any sensible thing. That would just be a waste of processing power.
I disagree. Ultimate reality (Essence) is the potentiality to negate Being as the appearance of otherness, thereby actualizing existence. Nothing else has that power -- not value or energy or quantum physics or a divinity.
Talking about sensibility without the possibility of something to sense it is just gibberish. And you whine about Nihilists. Without brains or sensing creatures what you have left is Death.
You've just demonstrated the kind of reasoning that makes me whine about nihilists.
Again, you (and Arlo) have a very limited, materialistic notion of sensibility which is a major part of our "communication" problems. Absolute Sensibility does not require neurons and receptors to "receive" sensory information. In Essence there is no otherness. Sensibility and its "object" are one; Subjectivity and its Value are one. Because this epistemology is beyond human understanding, I make no attempt to describe it in causal terms but only as a metaphysical concept. I know my inability to provide a definitive explanation in existential terms annoys you both. But if you can't accept the concept, what do you achieve (other than venting your spleen) by attacking it?
I respectfully suggest that you broaden your philosophical perspective and consider a metaphysical theory on its own merits for a change. You may be surprised at how effectively this can resolve your circular debates about parsing Quality to account for reality.
Essentially speaking, 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/
