Hi Ham, What a great word! A while back I was posting about Venn Diagrams. When I looked up your word, for some reason Wiki was at the top. And, what do you know, it goes right into these Diagrams. I think it is a good way to explain the creation of "other". The term also implies (I think) that self and other arise independently which flies straight in the face of determinism and Buddhism. I love it, all that satisfaction out of one word. Interestingly, if I google the word contrapositionality I only came up with 33 hits, which is not very many for the Omnipotent Google. So, good find indeed, I will begin to use it to seem really cerebral (heh, heh).
And so, how can I use it in logic to rephrase the tenants of MoQ? DQ and sq must co-arise independently. That is, the notion that DQ creates sq is only true if sq creates DQ. This makes sense to me, and I see no contradiction there. Additionally, the levels must arise independently. I have always stood for the notion that all levels existed from the beginning. The filling of the niches which Quality provides for these levels does vary. Finally, Quality = Reality. Well, I won't even go there for fear of stoking the wrath of Marsha. So, at first glance I do not see any contradiction with MoQ. Quality only exists "for the knower" when it is realized. Both Quality and the witness co-arise independently and act as the Yin and Yang of the Cosmos (better than Reality, huh?). And yes, the circle enclosing the Tao, is indeed oneness. It is the interplay which makes Quality known both to the subject and the object. I suppose the only problem I see in terms of merging Essentialism and MoQ together is the concept of negation. Perhaps you could give a try at how this would work out. Thanks, Mark On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Mark, and Hi Marsha, Steve, and dmb -- > > On Sat, 7/16/11 at 11:49AM, Mark "118" [email protected] wrote: > > >> Quality is neither a property of the subject or the object. It is >> what "lies between". I have spent many posts explaining this >> but will try again. Objects (or subjects) do not contain Quality; >> they express it. What we note about an object is its expression. >> We cannot know the fundamental nature of an object, only >> those qualities which are imparted by it. >> >> I realize that this "in between" causes confusion, and Ham and >> I went back and forth on it. As you know, the subject/object >> divide does not work with MoQ. As I understand it, some >> were barred from this forum for attempting to do just that. >> So, let me think of an analogy. When we are on a boat on the >> ocean. We do not feel the ocean, what we feel is the expression >> of the ocean through waves. The waves are a Quality of the >> ocean. We go up and down in rhythm to that Quality. It is not >> a far step to see that this is the same as our relation to objects, >> or the cosmos in general. > > Mark should be commended for his efforts to make Quality (or what I would > call Value) more understandable, and his ocean waves analogy is an > appropriate one. I also agree that the term "patterns" does not do justice > to this concept. Neither does "indefinable DQ". > > I was trying to think of a better word than "differentiation" for the state > of existence in which we all participate. The best I could come up with was > "contrapositionality", which relates to antithesis as well as contrariety. > Webster's defines contraposition as "the relationship between two > propositions when the subject and predicate of one are respectively the > negation of the predicate and subject of the other." What does this mean? > > Look at it this way: Value (Quality) only exists when it is realized. > Realized Value must have a Knower. That Knower is the sensible subject and > the actualized object (Being) is a valuistic expression of the knower's > sensibility. The "proposition" that we need to confront here is Oneness. > What we are really asking is: How does Oneness make its Value known? The > answer is that it creates a Knower (i.e., sensible agent) in contraposition > to itself. > > If we imagine Sensible Oneness (Essence) as the Being of Value, it becomes > clear that, in order for its value to be realized, Being and Knowing must be > contraposed. The relation of Knowing to Being -- what Mark calls "what lies > between" -- is Value. To get to this actualized state of differentiation, > the subject and predicate ("I AM") of Oneness are negated to create a new > proposition; namely, the subject and predicate "I KNOW" and "THIS IS". In > between is the Value sensed by the agent who experiences "this is" > autonomously and deals with it freely as he will. > > Does this paradigm make my ontogeny any more comprehensible? If so, how > much of it contradicts the MoQ thesis? I'll leave these questions up to you > folks. > > Valuistically 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
