On Oct. 29 at 2:01PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> What you are saying here Ham are (literally) intellectual observations
> after the event. I still tend to think that you want the positing of an
> independent observer, an independent object and the 'something' that
> 'happens' between the two without any 'primary' connection.
No, Andre, you read me incorrectly. I assume that "the event" refers to
experience. If so, our cognizance of events (observation) represents our
intellectual interpretation of experience. (The time sequence is of no
importance.)
The "independent observer" is crucial for the realization of value and its
objectification of otherness (physical reality). And value-sensibility holds
these contingencies together as negated "essents". But while Value is our
"primary connection" to Essence, it is the negation of Essence that actualizes
the differential nature of finitude. Hence, negation is primary to difference
(the Self/Other dichotomy), and individuated Sensibility is primary to the
(space/time) appearance of finite existents.
Here's the bottom line: The ontology of Essentialism supports the theory that
Absolute Essence is the "unmoved mover" which transcends the dynamics of
negation.
I hope this clarifies your misconception.
Ron:
Hello Ham,
To clarify your misconception, the ontological viewpoint of the MoQ is that
value, the good, is the "unmoved mover".
that which transcends the percieved dynamics of negation.
Your Ontology fails to explain the independant observer, it starts with its
assumption of being.
and clearly one must explain it's being if one wants a complete Ontological
explanation.
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/md/archives.html
