Hi Ham,
On the contrary, I can buy what you post. Is it possible that there
are different rhetorical manners of pointing to the same thing? One
could also interpret what you present as experiential and ultimate
realities as static quality and dynamic quality. Lately I have been
presenting the rhetorical split in Quality as the world of appearances
and the world which creates it ("world" is of course used very
loosely). You present a conceptual framework for how this happens
through the use of negation. I know you know what you mean by this,
but it is still a mystery to me. I have more to say in your longer
post to me, which I am just getting to.
Cheers,
Mark
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey, Mark --
>
>> Ham, I think you are trying to make a subtle point that may have
>> more meaning to you than to others. It may just boil down to
>> what these words mean to you. As I understand it, Reality
>> composes everything, even the unreal. From your ontology I see
>> Essence as not everything, since we can negate it. By my semantic
>> calculations, therefore, I would say that Essence is part of Reality.
>> But, you may be saying something different altogether.
>
> Sorry I wasn't clear in my message to Tuukka. (Apparently my ontology
> wasn't clear to you, either.)
>
> Epistemologically there are two kinds of reality: "experiential" and
> "ultimate". What we (as finite creatures) observe and interpret from
> experience is a time/space reality that consists of a multiplicity of things
> and events that come and go, including the selves who experience them. This
> is the reality I call "empirical" and consider largely illusionary.
>
> Absolute or 'ultimate' reality (Essence) is what supports this illusion.
> Essence is uncreated, absolute, and undifferentiated, which is why many
> regard it as nothingness or 'mythical'. For the nihilist, existence sprang
> up from nothingness and is all there is. But things don't come into
> existence by their own power. ('Ex nihilo nihil fit.') Anything that
> exists requires a creator or source from which it is derived. Unlike
> 'existents', this primary source does not experience a world of things as
> 'otherness', which is why Cusanus defined Essence as the 'Not-other'.
>
> The concept of an absolute source has historically been fraught with
> controversy, because philosophers have been unable to explain how diversity
> and change can come from an immutable Oneness. But if we understand the
> "act of creation" as negational, rather than "additive", the paradox is
> resolved. The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians "Now we see but a poor
> reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in
> part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." The Essentialist
> views creation not as a process in time (evolution), but as a constant
> negation of Essence. In other words, whereas Essence is "negational" from
> the finite human perspective, Existence is a 'fait accompli' from the
> absolute perspective.
>
> Any act of creation is a negation. This is how we were created, and it's
> why we negate the value of Essence differentially to actualize being as
> objects of our experience. But, ultimately, there are no individuated
> 'selves', finite objects, or passing events. There is but One
> All-encompassing Essence.
>
> I don't expect you to buy this, Mark; but possibly it will enable you to see
> more clearly where I'm coming from.
>
> Realistically 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
