Hi Ham, Ron, I do not see any MoQ references here coming from Ron, which I take to signify no alternative theories, yet. If we want to discuss Aristotelian logic, then certainly we are left to the world of language. Such categorization lies at the root of Western divergence. It is quite true that using Western Philosophical promises we become subjects of language.
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 5:11 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ron said: >> 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. > > Ham: > Zero or nothingness may be an "abstraction" in relational logic, but not in > metaphysical reality. > > Ron: > ESPECIALLY in a Metaphysical construction of reality! it's not experienced! > Essentialism > > all rests on a abstraction. You really can't deny this. [Mark] No, all does not rest on abstraction, much rests on experience which is anything but abstract. Metaphysical conveyance of ideas performed through stories is not abstract. I fully experience what Essence provides. I call this Quality, but it all amounts to the same thing. That is, what lies beneath as the water forms a tree. > > Ham: > Logically, if Essence is Absolute, it contains no other. > > Ron: > Right logically it contains no other and there can be no other besides. > > Ham: > Finitude is then Essence reduced by Nothingness. > > Ron: > Finitude is then limit. How can Essence which we just admitted as absolute, be > reduced > by a second entity? what slight of hand are you trying to pull? it conflicts > and > contradicts > entirely the meaning of "absolute". c'mon Ham. [Mark] I think what Ham means, is that Essence can be negated by nothingness into the world of appearances which is finite. One could see it like a prism which separates wavelengths of light from unity to the many. I believe Ron would be correct with the opposite opposition, that is that finitude be reduced to Essence. In MoQ we have Quality which can be considered Essence, then we have static quality which represents finitude. The process of reduction is Dynamic Quality. In this way, dynamic quality is Nothingness. Since nothingness can be considered to be nothing, it can be considered to be excluded from Essence which makes it a second entity, but does not detract from the inclusivity of Essence. > > Ham: > But Essence has no Nothingness. > Therefore, negation is the power of Essence to create finitude. > My conclusion: Essence is negational > > Ron: > How about limit, for any experience to have any meaning, it's much easier to > explain > and it works logically but your explanation above is well,,inconsistant > illogical and unclear. > Essence cant be negational if it is absolute. Otherwise you render the term > "absolute" > meaningless. Absolute is absolute Ham, not just when it's convieniant to be in > certain > contexts. [Mark] I don't think so unless one treats Essence as only partial. Since what is left is nothingness, nothing is detracted from essence through this separation. Negational can also mean to cancel out such as in the negative of two is negational of two. What lies between two and negative two is nothing (zero). There is a technique in creative accounting using two columns which resembles this negation. The same data is used, but one off-sets the other. > 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. [Mark] Language is simply a tool for conveyance, as such it cannot create contradiction, but simply relate it. I would agree with Ham that language is not a cause, but an effect. > > Ron: > Right opposites are an intellection drawn from experience, in experience there > are no opposites > only distinction. Opposites are a result of explanation. But I know that kills > your theory so you > can't accept that. [Mark] Well, I would say that there is balance in experiences. This is more than relative distinction. I would say that explanation is a result of opposites. Opposites have always existed, such as birth and death. Both exist on opposite sides of life. Being between both poles at the moment, we seek to explain it. In this way we are consistent with Hams notion of Nothingness. > > Ham: > > If you have an alternative theory, why don't you express it in plain words for > the rest of us? > > Ron: > I believe I just did. [Mark] I must have missed it. > Thanks allowing me to referee the conversation, boys. 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
