On 11/27/09 10:42 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Ham and All, I was musing about DQ in levels of evolution as the root of morality. DQ gravity identifies the inorganic level. DQ instinctive procreation by cell splitting is the organic level. DQ instinctive procreation by the penetration of the egg cell wall by the sperm cell identifies a second higher organic level. DQ Consciousness evolves from instinct and appears at the Social level which I prefer to call the Emotional level. DQ Consciousness-instinct evolves further to the Intellectual level SO. Here any intuition of evolution stops for most of us. DQ consciousness can evolve to a higher emotional level in consciousness only e.g. heroes. DQ consciousness can evolve to a higher intellectual level in consciousness only, renowned philosophers. When I think of a morality based on essence, I get confused. I do not expect a hierarchy in essence since essences are exclusive of order. Gravity, instinctive procreation, consciousness are DQ when the levels of evolution are enunciated according to the MOQ and one does not exclude the other. The first split is DQ/SQ, defined/undefined The realization that our awareness encompasses the undefined was startling to me. I wanted to see if there were a possible pattern in undefined reality. I attributed Gravity, Instinctive procreation, and Consciousness as DQ for the different levels. Morality is logical. It is hard to find a vocabulary to discuss DQ in relation to dq/sq metaphysics. But I must acknowledge that undefined/defined seemed to me to be a bit more specific than ³essence.² I kind of accept your statement that: You can't have a created world without an uncreated source. Ex nihilo nihil fit -- nothing comes from nothingness. In the face of evolution, something else is added to the mix. There is no way to accept a hierarchy of essential beings! They would lose the quality of being essential. Morality then becomes illogical. Aren¹t we trying to describe a metaphysics from which morality flows to avoid positing the tyrannical laws of an unknowable illogical supreme being? If one supreme essence is illogical, and depends on faith for acceptance, Many supreme essences are impossible. It does not seem to be a good way to approach morality, and evolution is in the toilet, and "Ham says" must be taken as gospel. Joe > Hi Joe -- > > [Ham, previously to Mark]: >> The human body and its neuro-sensory system are the biological >> "instrument" of sensibility. But the Value of which it is sensible >> comes from the prime essence. This is what Science, with all its >> investigative resources, is unable to discover. It's not something >> you can research and confirm from empirical evidence. > > [Joe]: >> Carbon! It is found in coal, and in a sentient being. The simplest >> explanation is that it exists differently in the two instances and has >> different qualities. It is not derived from a "prime essence" of carbon. >> Indeed, "prime essence" is a contradiction when speaking of an >> individual since individuality is a logical contradiction to primacy. >> Where there is one, prime, two logically follows. Two carbons >> exist differently and the contradiction disappears. > > UREKA! You have found it? > > Carbon is the building block of organic chemistry, so it has been called > "the element of life". Actually, water (hydrogen and oxygen) are more > essential to life than carbon. But, like all elements in the periodic > table, carbon has a specific atomic weight which distinguishes it as an > element. Isn't this individuality as much a "logical contradiction to > primacy" as is the human individual? Yet carbon and its molecular forms > (including organic) must be derived from an "uncreated" soruce. > > Your rule that "two logically follows from one" is a mathematical principle, > not a metaphysical concept. Mark had suggested that Quality could be > replaced by a number of words, including "prime source". But the "primary > source" has nothing to do with "prime numbers"; it connotes the essence that > is primary to numbers, difference, and relations. Everything that exists is > separate and "individuated" from everything else. Does this "contradiction > to primacy" invalidate an essential source? Logically not. > > The fallacy in basing ontology on a substantive element like carbon is that > an element is a "thing", and things are experiential constructs of value. > Pirsig based his ontology on Quality which is not a physical thing but > requires a sensible agent to realize it. So neither carbon nor quality can > be the fundamental reality, even though both are derived from a primary > source. When you deny the fundamental source, you deny existence as a > causal possibility. You can't have a created world without an uncreated > source. Ex nihilo nihil fit -- nothing comes from nothingness. > > 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/ 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/
