Hi Ron --
Ham, previously:
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.
Ron:
That is because zero, like "nothingness" is a pure abstraction. It holds
special significance to you because your entire ontology rests apon it.
To be honost, this part of your explanation should be better accounted
for it is the anchor of your Essentialism. Mathematics in the art of
measure
was utilized for centuries before the abstraction of zero was invented.
This philosophical discussion is an old one, a good read of Aristotle's
Metaphysics really explains some good reasons as to why "nothingness"
and zero are riddled with inconsistancies and problems as far as a
primary explanation of experience.
Zero or nothingness may be an "abstraction" in relational logic, but not in
metaphysical reality.
Logically, if Essence is Absolute, it contains no other.
Finitude is then Essence reduced by Nothingness.
But Essence has no Nothingness.
Therefore, negation is the power of Essence to create finitude.
My conclusion: Essence is negational
Ron:
Do realize that dualism and opposites result from the act of explanation
and the use of language; to take them as actual constituants of reality
is a reification of those relational concepts of meaning.
You seem to be living in a semiotic world, Ron. Since when do we need
mathematics and logical symbols to recognize contradiction? Explication and
language do not produce the self/other duality nor the difference between
black and white. Such opposites are intellectualized directly from
experience, even if we are mute creatures who have no language.
Ron:
Well Ham whatever works for you, but don't be surprised if the more
discerning philosopher doesn't swallow your reasons, you'll have better
luck with those who don't ask many questions.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "discerning" philosopher, but I'm happy to
answer any question that will help to clarify my ontology and make it more
comprehensible.
If you have an alternative theory, why don't you express it in plain words
for the rest of us?
Essentially curious,
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
