Hi Mark --
Hi Ham,
I do not have much knowledge of Cusa, so take this with a grain of salt.
It appears you have a semantic abstraction of Essense. Negation can
have a lot of connotations as far as I can tell. If it is simply used as a
term to describe the "appearance of", then there are better terms.
I am trying to think what the negation of zero is. I guess that is a
number
other than zero. The negation of nothing is therefore something.
Well that seems pretty simple semantically. What is the negation of an
ocean? What is the negation of beauty? I can't see how the term of
negation explains anything except to perhaps say the "opposite of".
If I were to say that existence is nothingness turned inside out,
I wouldn't be explaining anything. Metaphysics rests on real things,
it is more than playing with a language. While it is an abstraction,
it must be explained in terms that relate (at least for me). It is
possible
that Essence cannot be rationalized, and perhaps that is not the right
question to ask how it is negated. But to simply say that it just is,
leaves me no wiser.
Metaphysics is fundamentally an attempt to fathom the difference between
Being and Nothing, to postulate why there is being instead of nothing, and
to come up with a reason for being. We cannot do this with mere numbers.
Negating an ocean doesn't create a desert, nor does negated beauty produce
ugliness. However, "negation" as a metaphysical concept opens a window of
opportunity for a Creation theory. For example, suppose you are right that
"the negation of nothing is "something". Then, if Absolute Essence negates
nothing, Being is the "something" created. And, as the perceptive negates
of that something, what we experience is a world of "beingness" which our
nothingness (a negation of Being) in turn breaks down into "real things".
That's more than an "abstraction" cobbled out of wordplay, Mark. It's a
working paradigm for a creation hypothesis.
Although he is not a metaphysicist, Dinesh D'Souza thinks like one and also
believes, as I do, that existence is anthropocentric. Here is the argument
condensed from his own inspiring words:
"We inhabit a tiny insignificant planet in a relatively undistinguished
galaxy in a distant suburb of an unimaginably vast universe. If man is so
central to God's purposes in nature, why do we live in such a marginal speck
of real estate in such a big, indifferent universe? In recent years,
physics has given this question a resounding answer that overthrows the
mediocrity and affirms man's special place in the cosmos. It turns out that
the vast size and great age of our universe are not coincidental. They are
the indispensible conditions for the existence of life on earth. The entire
universe with all its laws appears to be a conspiracy to produce living
inhabitants like you and me. Physicists call this incredible finding the
anthropocentric principle, which states that the universe we perceive must
be of precisely such a nature as will make possible living beings who can
perceive it. The Copernican narrative has been reversed and man has been
restored to his ancient pedestal as the favored son, and perhaps even the
raison d'être of creation." -- ['What's So Great About Christianity',
Chpt. 12]
However, if I were to ascribe to this notion, I would have to assume
that all of existence has sensibility, more than just the chemicals that
make
up a human body. Does your philosophy explain why it is that a
composite entity which is confluent with the (so called) outside can
sense value only if it is in a certain configuration?
Yes, I believe it does. There is no "outside". There is only the value of
otherness that we objectivize as being. The sensibility that "all of
existence has" is subjective, that is to say, proprietary to the cognizant
self. The "configuration" of existence is ours. Every phenomenon
apprehended by the self originates from value-sensibility and is
differentiated and configured by experience and intellection. That includes
our physical body and the chemicals that comprise it. The idea that we live
in an external environment of material substance is also an intellectualized
construct of value sensibility. Awareness, sensations, experience,
perception, and ideas are all derived from this primary Sensibility. All we
can know is what we experience. And the essence of experience is Value, not
matter.
Thank you for asking, Mark.
Essentially yours,
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/
