Hey Mark --
> Hi Ham,
>
> Just wanted to be a bit contrary here.
Aw, shucks! Why would you want to be contrary? And just as were making
progress, too.
> You state that Essence is the ultimate nature of things, but your
> ontology paints a different picture. For, in Essentialism, three
> independent "natures" are required: Essence, Self, and the
> process of negation. Now, I suppose Self and Essence can be
> considered as one thing observing itself, but negation, as a process,
> is neither. So, "ultimate nature" is not quite correct, except as
> a materialist reductionist analogy of building blocks. Subatomic
> entities are not the nature of matter, since left out are the forces
> within the matter, and between matter.
You are really hung up on this triadic principle, aren't you, Mark? Look, I
could say that my ontogeny is a trilogy because it involves . . .
Essence, Existence, and Value,
Self, Other, and Source,
Oneness, Finitude, and Nothingness,
Absolute, Differentiated, and Not,
Subject, Object, and Potentiality
But what does the mystical number '3' avail us? Does it afford us any
better comprehension of the concept? Does dividing nature into Energy,
Mass, and Motion improve our understanding of the physical world?
To say that "Essence is the ultimate nature of reality" is no less "correct"
than saying that energy is the ultimate nature of light. Furthermore,
negation is NOT "process", as I define it, but an attribute of the creative
source. Essence is "negational", and creation is only conceived as
evolutionary by the human intellect due to the temporal mode of experience.
> As I have tried to convey, The description of "ultimate nature"
> must be presented as trilogy, otherwise it makes no sense to our logic.
> In MoQ, this would be DQ, sq, and IQ.
What's IQ? Intelligence quotient? And what is "OUR logic"? I have stated
before that conventional logic can be applied only to a relational system.
Since Essence is non-relational and non-conditional, metaphysics requires
its own (unconventional) logic. .
> The three are required for the same reason the position of a point
> must be expressed through triangulation. The dimensionality of space
> cannot be discarded in metaphysics, since it creates our reality.
> The only thing worse than two dimensional metaphysics, is one
> dimensional metaphysics.
Again, Mark, numbers and integers relate to finitude or sequenced events,
not to an immutable Absolute. If you're going to reject my ontology
because it doesn't lend itself to three-dimensional analysis, you will be
demonstrating to me that you're an objectivist rather than a philosopher.
Inasmuch as the objectivists of Science haven't managed to explain Creation
in two centuries of empirical investigation, I'm not about to turn Essentialism
into an empirical philosophy.
Maybe you're just pulling my leg instead of taking my words seriously, I
don't know. In any case, I would much prefer that you wanted to be
conciliatory rather than contrary. If Joe can do it, so can you, Mark.
Hoping for a more positive response,
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
