Hi Ron --
On Fri, June 03, 2011 at 9:57 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ham said:
"Limit" is exactly what I'm talking about, Ron. Nothingness is what
limits experience to Value, and what differentiates essential value into
the relative entities experienced. Moreover, nothingness (by definition)
is not an entity, so your suggestion that I'm "pulling a sleight of hand"
trick by inserting "a second entity" into the equation is ill-founded.
Ron asked:
Again if Essense is absolute, where can nothingness reside anywhere?
Essence must necessarily be a dualism per the explanation you use to
account for value.
Number and Difference are the existential equivalents of Essence divided by
nothingness. They define finitude as we experience it. Things and events
cannot be experienced without the nothingness that divides sensibility from
its otherness. Accordingly, I regard existence (the pluralistic world of
appearances) as derived from the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which is
primary to differentiated experience.
Now, the question you ask is a logical one: Where is the nothingness that
divides? This is a paradox for absolutists like myself, and my answer will
not fit your standard logical syllogism. We are dealing here with that
which does NOT exist -- specifically, 'not-Essence' -- and treating it like
an existent. Nothingness is a "simulated other" created by the denial
(negation) of Essence. This is not an "act" on the part of Essence, but a
modality of the negational source. (You might compare it with the trail
left by a comet or the solar flare radiated by the sun.) The only way it
can exist is as a limitation of conscious sensibility. Like the gap that
separates two halves of a mountain range, nothingness is effective by its
absence. Although the negation of nothingnmess does not produce a dualism,
its net effect is to provide the appearance of otherness.
And while you may still consider my explanation "word trickery", I've
devoted a lot of thought to this concept, and to date it is the best
solution I can come up with. If you have the analytical skill to express
this as a logical premise, I'll be eternally grateful.
Ron:
That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists
indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good". Perception is the
limit
and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is
unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good. It accounts
for beauty
in experience and why it is better to be wise than not.
Whether Absolute Essence is "the good" or not is a moral question that is
subject to man's notion of morality.
I prefer to think of Essence as "perfect", since Value comes in all flavors.
The consequences of negation are negative. Good then, is a struggle
against
evil. Evil is justified as part of the eternal process of being.
Nothingness
haunts the one subscribing to dualism, isolated and seperated from the
source
and life, it is a struggle to reconcile with separation and nothingness.
Ham, previously:
Physical reality is thus a synthesis of nothingness and value actualized
experientially by the value-sensible agent. All contradiction,
opposition,
and bipolarity are experienced in the world of appearances, and are not
attributes or properties of metaphysical reality.
Ron:
Then you clearly do not know the meaning of the word "absolute".
How the heck do you expect to sell the idea of an absolute source that
may "exclude itself". That which is absolute is pure and continuous and
unconditional. Essence is clearly not absolute if it may exclude itself.
Try as you might, you are going to have a hard time explaining this away.
In negation the Absolute obviously does not exclude itself in totality, but
only "finitely" which, when you're dealing with absolutes, means nothing at
all in terms of magnitude.
Ron, I suspect you understand what I'm saying, but have doubts because it
isn't expressible as a logical proposition. Should that be the case, why
not see if this concept can be made acceptable on logical grounds? You are
the most likely person I know to put it into a logical framework. So,
please be my guest.
Thanks, Ron,
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
