On 10/18/11 9:16 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, there, Joe --
>
>> Hi Ham and all,
>>
>>> Essence is the uncreated Absolute Source of diversity.
>>
>> What observation can help me describe a reality for
>> this statement? I presume that it is an article of Faith.
>
> Since only empirical reality can be observed, experiential existence is the
> "observation" that describes Essence. Absolute Essence itself is
> non-empirical and, thus, indescribable. This is my conviction based, not on
> "faith", but
> on the logic that nothing can come from nothing and that only an "uncreated"
> source avoids the infinite regression of prior causes.
Hi Ham,
The metaphysics of DQ/SQ describes an indefinable reality called DQ to be a
part of my experience while remaining indefinable. This makes sense to me.
"Experiential existence" seems to follow the same logic, except that
negation is emphasized as logically primary. How can I experience negation
before an affirmation of reality except in dreams? Without the affirmation
of reality negation is imaginary.
>> Do you propose that as sentient beings we have common
>> essences? As far as I know Essence is a term of logic
>> given to an abstraction by the intellect in Aristotle's theory
>> of knowledge.
>
> Aristotle posited things as 'essences', but there is only one Essence, as
> Plotinus surmised, and anything else is a derivative of Essence by negation.
> I'm not aware of Essence as a logical term, but if the Primary Source is an
> "abstraction" to you, I suppose it fills the bill.
A theory of a knowledge of indefinable reality begs the question, is it real
or imaginary. Pirsig's observation is that DQ is real but remains
indefinable. My only experience of indefinable reality that I can point to
are indefinable emotions. I do experience them, and Love is beyond
definition.
>> SOM's theory of knowledge creates intentional existence
>> for Essence. There is no reality to essence, only the
>> conceptual logical environment in SOM.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "intentional" existence, unless you are
> referring to the cognitive agent (man) who is its decision-maker. And how
> can you say "there is no reality to Essence" when it is the ultimate Source
> of existence?
Aristotle wanted to modify Plato's world of ideas to describe reality. He
saw that "intentional existence" a creation by an intellect, would explain
how outside reality exists in my mind with no extension as essence so there
was plenty of room for reality in an intentional existence in the mind.
Intentional Existence became a bone of contention, in that morality became
whatever I intended it to be. Laws have existence only in my mind. Chaos
is real, I am free and the medieval Church governed society from an
authority of revelation.
>> Positing Essence as an uncreated Absolute Source of diversity
>> denies individual accountability.
>
> How so? Where would the individual be if there were no Essence to create
> him? How could there be accountability without an agent to realize Value?
>
Essence has no existence in itself, only a created intentional existence in
a mind which appeals not to reality, only imagination for verification. The
inquisition is the child of the authoritarian hold on truth.
>> The diversity of indefinable individuality I find acceptable. My
>> individuality is differently sourced than yours. I can not reject
>> my indefinable individuality in logical discourse. Communication
>> requires common experiences. I don't think essence is a
>> common experience.
>
> What's the difference between "indefinable individuality" and an
> "indefinable Creator" when it comes to communication? Essence may not be
> directly experienced, but it is the common denominator of all sensibility.
>
Substitute "indefinable creator" with the Inquisition, and you have the
history of abuse by clerics who burned people at the stake because they
didn't like them.
>> MOQ proposes a different theory for knowledge, evolution,
>> as a metaphysical premise for diversity. I conjecture that MOQ
>> accepts evolutionary reality as levels in existence. I find that
>> idea exciting.
>
> However "exciting" evolution may be to you, it is not "metaphysical" but
> experiential. We experience a pluralistic three-dimensional universe
> unfolding over time and call the process evolution. This is is an empirical
> fact of common knowledge. There is nothing metaphysical about it.
The history of clerical abuse in the middle ages, the Inquisition, indicates
that metaphysics are experiential. Levels in evolution exposes reality as
experiential in acknowledging a hierarchy in evolution as a stone does not
have the capabilities of a lightning strike, a novel and a theory for
evolution to levels in existence. There is no essential evolution. I have
to figure it out.
>
> Are you not also excited about the possibility of understanding the true
> nature of Reality, how the world of your experience is created, and why you
> are here? Only metaphysics can explain that. The fact that metaphysical
> theories can't be proved makes this branch of philosophy even more exciting
> for me.
The reality of the inquisition demands that reality in metaphysics be
cherished DQ/SQ not theoretically formulated.
> Unless you've lost your zeal for logical criticism, this should make you
> want to challenge me.
>
> Essentially speaking,
> Ham
>
Joe
> 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
