> 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.
[Ham] I disagree. We are ALL attracted to ultimate reality; it is the source of Value. Therefore, ultimate reality cannot be a meaningless concept. [Krimel] Well of course you disagree. But I am not attracted to ultimate reality. As I said I do not know what the term is supposed to mean. I find the source of Value not in one big thing but in all the little everyday things I find in the world around me. But "ultimate reality" just sounds like a term people might use when they get really, really high. > [Krimel] > 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". [Ham] 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. [Krimel] More disagreement, will wonders never cease? We are not "placed" here in space and time. We arise out of space and time. The universe does appear to be an ordered system but "undifferentiated existence" is just another lofty sounding empty shell. You keep saying "nothing can come from nothing" but this is a testable notion. It may or may not be true and apparently in the case of the universe itself it may be utterly false. And as always, you fail to account for where the primary source comes from. Have you actually thought about this? After all if one thing, your "primary source," can come from nothing; why not something else? Why not say the universe comes from nothing and drop the theological smoke screen? After all we have no trouble whatever figuring out how creatures like us could arise from a universe like this without appeal to hollow concepts and metaphysical absurdities. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] Jesus, man is that really just world salad? It reminds me of some of Chomsky's examples of sentences that are syntactically correct but semantically meaningless. I guess the only reply to such logic is: Grizzled walnuts sulk in corners of complexity. Therefore, trees of chandeliers outweigh the potential throwbacks to democracy. Nothing can overthrow this regardless of simple cacophony. > [Krimel] > And you whine about Nihilists. Without brains or sensing > creatures what you have left is Death. [Ham] You've just demonstrated the kind of reasoning that makes me whine about nihilists. [Krimel] You don't actually address what I said. So you confess that your Absolute reality ultimate thingymabob is utterly lifeless. [Ham] 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 [Krimel] Again without sensory apparatus nothing gets experienced. Sense and all of its derivatives in English refer to the five commonly acknowledged senses which do require neurons. If you have something else in mind might I suggest you find a more appropriate term or make up a new one of your own but please stop abusing the common tongue. [Ham] 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? [Krimel] Epistemology is about human understanding and what humans can understand. To propose that understanding is beyond understanding is ridiculous. And yet even then, you say it is beyond understanding, but you understand it. You seem to regard being unable to explain something in meaningful terms as a virtue. I do actually read your stuff sometimes and mostly I just let you ramble on in your befuddled way. But yeah, occasionally I find some comfort in reminding you that you really are not making the least bit of sense. [Ham] 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. [Krimel] I did, last year, make your online term paper my Easter meditation. As you will recall I found is so sad and depressing I had to get Case to comment on it. On its merits, I have given your "metaphysical theory" more time and credit than it deserves. 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/
