Hi Ham, I enjoyed reading your elucidation (below) in response to Ron. Ron is requesting logical equations, which you do your best to provide him. In my opinion, your explanations of Essence have gotten better over the last two years. This is what dialogue and teaching bring out.
I am not sure how Ron applies Western logic to MoQ, but I am sure he is met with the same difficulties. More below. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings, Ron -- > > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 8:53 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ham said to Joe: >> For me, the answer lies in the theory of Negation. If the Absolute Source >> (God) is the perfect unity of all that is or can ever be, then the >> potentiality >> of this identity is negation. That is to say, what is by nature absolute >> and >> undifferentiated can create only by "negating nothingness" to produce >> difference. Once Difference is established as the subjective mode of >> experience, relational otherness becomes the value construct of a >> cognitive >> agent who himself relates valuistically to his Creator. Also, inasmuch as >> nothingness is antithetical to Essence, the principle of negation is >> consistent >> with the essential ontology. > > Ron: >> >> Again the old problem of the one and the many and again you try to solve >> it >> by somehow introducing "nothingness" into the "absolute" like a character >> in a play. >> You said: "what is by nature absolute and undifferentiated can create only >> by "negating nothingness" to produce difference." >> Some questions you need to address in your ontology: >> >> 1. If what is by nature absolute and undifferentiated, how does >> "nothingness" >> appear out of it? >> >> 2. Since nothingness can not logically exist within what is absolute and >> undifferentiated how may it be negated? >> >> 3. Any negation of nothingness is going to logically result in >> nothingness. >> something can not logically come from nothing. > > I don't claim an ability to "describe" the ineffable, but simply to explain > its "dynamics" in a context that logicians like you can accept. It's > obvious to me that although we can't experience "nothingness" in our world > of appearances, it nevertheless accounts for the differentiation and > contrariety of our experience. Like the proverbial "zero" which > mathematically represents "nothing", it doesn't exist; yet existence is not > experienceable without it. One could say that nothingness is conspicuous by > its absence. [Mark] If we have Essence on one side of Value, and our experiential world on the other side, this pretty much covers everything that is. However, these two things are separate in Essentialism. If we take everything away except for the separation, we are left with nothingness (which is something by definition). So, what happens if we take nothingness out of the equation, what are we left with? It would seem that cognizant beings (and everything else) would disappear. Let me try an analogy other than math. If we take two colors such as red and orange. Strictly speaking, there is nothing that separates these colors. If we remove what separates or distinguishes them, what are we left with? > > Likewise, I could say that the Absolute doesn't possess nothingness BECAUSE > Essence negates it. This would, of course, make Essence "negational" in a > logical sense. As I consider Difference to be the experiential ground of > physical reality, and negation its 'actuator', I have no problem with the > idea that the world of appearances is the "negative mode" of Essence. After > all, moral judgments are based on the relation between good and evil, and > experience is based on the contrariety of light and dark, large and small, > attraction and repulsion, birth and death, self and other, and a whole host > of opposites. [Mark] It would seem from your paragraph above, that we have Essence, the Absolute, and the Relational World. This works for me since I believe that reality is best condensed to three's rather than two's. I assume that the Absolute is divided much in the same way that Quality is split into sq and DQ (another three). It we extend this analogy, DQ could be considered negational, which certainly works. Much in the same way that we consider negative two to be the negative mode of two (or the other way around would be more appropriate), or we consider our reflections to be our negational selves, we can also consider our relational world to be a negate. This is simply a matter of perspective as far as I can see. What is important is that one is the negate of another. Just like we have opposites in the relational world, we can have opposites in the metaphysical world. > > Something has to account for the antithetical equivalent of Absolute > Essence. What else but nothingness represents that antipodal state? Were > Essence to disappear, what else would take its place? Moreover, we know > that man's sensory apperception is limited. To a blind man, vision is > nothingness. It seems to me that being limited to five senses deprives man > of other sensibilities that are regarded as nothing at all. To complete the > ontology of Essence, there needs to be a free agent that can experience > reality as an otherness to itself. Since negation is the power of the > Absolute to make such a perspective possible, I submit that we are created > by a negational Source. [Mark] Yes, the opposite of Essence is Nothingness. Using your senses analogy, most of the world is nothingness to us. Realizing this opens up another dimension to thought. As I see it, the free agent is the third leg on the stool (again three). As far as I can tell, what you call the Negational Source, is what I call Dynamic Quality. In this way, DQ is the creator, we, as sq, are the created always wondering how we got here. > > I'll leave the logic of this ontogeny to you, Ron, unless you can provide an > alternative. [Mark] Personally I think you have a well thought out ontology. I am not sure what Ron's ontology is, but it does not seem to be MoQ. Perhaps one day he will present MoQ in logical statements. I could certainly learn from such an exposition. Cheers, Mark > > > 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
