Mark, I'm waiting on Ham, but I think I can give some comments anyway, Tim
[Mark] On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:01:55 -0800, "118" <[email protected]> said: > Hi Tim, > The way I understand Ham's ontology is that everything that has the > potential of being differentiated already exists in his absolute essence. [Tim] I think that there is some imprecision in language that Ham would want to correct here - I don't know if I can do it - but he would say that this is close. First, the thing in everything is not a thing but a negate. Essence is, and it is immutable. essence does somehow entail all potential, thus already absolute. differentiation is not real, but phantasmagoric. How'm I doin' Ham? > [Mark] There is really no way of knowing this. [Tim] Ham might say that, I'm going on a limb, --- something about 'absolute' not having meaning otherwise. > [Mark] However, if there is a dynamic > component, then we can make a difference through a creative process. > This > of course does not impinge on the notion of absolute essence either. [Tim] I think that Ham would have us conclude that teh appearance of dynamism is part of the phantasmagoria... and maybe even that our free choices can either heighten this, our sense of the phantasmagoria, or else, bring us closer to the unity of being and sensibility that can be had in essence. But this is maybe where my grasp of Ham breaks down (though maybe way earlier too!). > [ Mark] Either > we pick and choose what is already there, or we create something new. If > we > take the creative stance, this brings responsibility and morality into > the > picture. [Tim] I think Ham might say something like, to the extent that creativity can be considered, the responsibility and morality of choice is no less if the choice is a negational one. > [Mark] Not that we create such a thing, but it is more of a guiding > principle which we can tap. > [Tim] Ham, we put off talk of morality. I can't even begin to think that I can start for you here. > [Mark] At present I do not see the need to create a Nothingness. I think > such a > concept falls out of our temporary memory of what is going on. [Tim] Ham would have us (again, I think) require 'nothingness' in order to preserve the pristine immutability of the already absolute. So there are two different things in the above. The latter is in line with popular, common usage (here), while the former seems bass-ackwards to us (me at least, and at least at first - which is why there was such a barrier to my understanding of what Ham was saying). > [Mark] At the > leading edge, our interaction with Quality is free of memory, [Tim] speaking only for me now: the interaction with Quality, at the leading edge, may be free of memory, in the bare sense, but we are not free of memory, and it is Our interaction, so memory is still intertwined. > [Mark] and > therefore > has more possibilities for creativity. But I haven't given Ham an honest > chance yet. [Tim] Well, to teh extent that I have grasped Ham, an honest chance would be worth one's while. Also, Ham has asked how much the MoQ is a part of our daily lives... I would guess that in the moment he is not thinking I am a negate, difference is nothingness, ... > > [Mark] For me, relationism allows me to get away from objects and view the > dynamic > more directly. [Tim] I think this is pretty much what Ham's essentialism builds to for him, though replace 'the dynamic' with 'essence'. > [Mark] Of course this makes an object out of it, but it moves. > It > is more like feeling the wind instead of describing it as the wind. > Memory > seems to tear this up, so one must be wary of that. > > This is nothing new of course, the trick is to grab ahold of it instead > of > thinking about it. This would make Quality more of a way of life than > some > metaphysical argument. [Tim] yes.... I think we all (here) aspire to have our way of life and metaphysics reinforce each other. > [Mark] Of course I am full of dreams that sometimes do > not > reflect reality... This reminds me of some lyrics from the Kings of > Convenience, which are from your neighborhood I think. [Tim] hehehe... under a rock? Earth? ... Bergen? hmmmmmmm... I have been talking about where Ham is coming from, but let me say just a bit about where I am coming 'FROM' - hehehe - going back through: it is weird for any of us to contemplate the absolute. I think Ham diverges from me at the foundation, but subsequent to this divergence we seem to see it the same, or pretty much the same, which is kinda neat, kinda weird, whatever. I think it is the fact that we can come from exactly opposite direction, but reach the same (or nearly the same: is this important?) innerts, that is the most concrete demonstration of the absolute. I see the absolute as fully potential, fully open to possibility, but really meager (wretched, death-like, - I should probably shut up about it), whereas Ham might see it as glorious, the pinnacle. Anyway, there is a lot I might say, but I should probably shut up about it - at least for now. But the key point, I think, is that I see the absolute as being preserved no matter what, whereas I think Ham has developed his thoughts (particularly his terminology) while trying to force himself to ensure the preservation of the immutable absolute. For my part, I wonder if this restriction is workable, or if it imposes some error within. I think that it should be workable, but that the idea of the absolute as a realization of all potentials simultaneously, rather than just openness to them, might be our real cause for contention. I think this is the cause of our difference on the nature of dynamism. Ham sees common reality as a phantasmagoria; I see it as a representation which has undergone a minimal of distortion (a fair and moral distortion). Dynamism for Ham is negational, we prefer creative, but I suspect that since both are workable, both are just as right (it is the picture of the absolute as realized or open that may be wrong: and Mark, perhaps the more prudent, has suggested that we cannot really know), the point is maybe better had as choice: setting a boundary between the no and the yes (am I creatively typing right now, or negationally not exploring the fjords of Norway, and not, etc. and etc. and ... there is a boundary, set by choice). Ham, I hope you'll forgive me if I have butchered you, it has been a an exercise for me, which seems to have helped me... Mark, and Ham, all the best, Tim > "Dreams burn but in ashes are gold" > > Cheers, > Mark > -- [email protected] -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web 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
