Ronsaid: > 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.
Ham replies: Precisely what is it you need me to explain, Ron? "Being" is an intellectual construct of value-sensibility, just as is "Nothingness". Without these precepts we could not recognize ourselves as human beings. Together with Sensibility, they account for our experience of an objective reality. At birth we borrow from Being the organism that is not only our objective identity but the instrument of our proprietary experience. The appearance of everything else follows from this synthesis. Ron: Here is what needs explanation, you first state that Being is an intellectual construct then you posit it as an objective physical fact, being is an organism. Going along for the time being, with what you are saying, independant observer is a synthesis, what explains the synthesis? why does it exist? what holds it together? Your explanation of Being has many inaccountabilities, If the independant self is an intellectual generalization of many explanations then it certainly is'nt independant, whole, and objective is it? But this is the assumption of fact that your ontology is based apon. Contradiction again Although we view it as a cause-and-effect process in time, existential reality is a negational and transitory mode of Essence that enables its value to be realized by an autonomous, external agent. Essential value is not limited to qualitative or esthetic realization, but encompasses the intelligent order of the universe and its relational constituents, the symmetry of logic and mathematics, as well as the ability to communicate and collaborate as individuals in the shaping of a more perfect world. Can anyone deny that this is literally "the opportunity of a lifetime"? Why, then, are we still goveling in darkenss and the dirt? Yours for the "betterness" of mankind (in an amoral universe). --Ham [Andre, previously]: > 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. 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/md/archives.html 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
