Howdy Ham, On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah (heh, heh), well, more fool me. I am presented with your ontology through words which I then "actualize" (to use your terminology) through value. Such actualization when converted to words is in conflict with your words. Therefore I use the term contrary to indicate that what you present does not compute through my Valuation. > > > 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? Hung up you say? Well I guess it goes with the territory. Yes, a foundation of logical premises does provide us with a "better comprehension" of concepts. These premises come in words, are then translated to "awareness", which then gets translated back into words and presented. When you speak of "understanding", I assume that you are referring to the presentation and adoption of concepts through language. So, in that sense, YES, they do improve our understanding of the physical world. The test is to see whether such division of reality is useful. Well, planes now fly, and computers now work, so I am satisfied by that contingency of "understanding" as tested through usefulness. If you are able to present your ontology as "components" I will grab on more quickly. As it is, the nature of Essence as you present it is quite confusing and inconsistent, in my view. > > 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. OK, I was just using your words, perhaps what you stated earlier (now deleted) was poorly presented when you present the concept of Ultimate. Negation is a process, so perhaps you should use a different word for this. It is also an attribute since Essence negates. Where does this negation come from, is it part of Essence? Is Essence then using Essence to to create mini-Essence, which then uses Essence to create Value? Perhaps you see my confusion. If Essence negates, then it is using the tool of negation which must exist independently in common logic. > >> 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. IQ, Interactive Quality as presented in Taoism as the line which divides the Yin and Yang. The more I use this term, the more others will know what I am talking about. It is part of the PowerPoint presentation. If you can provide meaning through unconventional logic, then more power to you. Why not consider using standard logic and see if it works. Otherwise you will be defining words and concepts till the cows come home. I say this in a most friendly way. > >> 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. As it turns out, the way in which we form agreement over the internet is through the presentation of finite concepts and sequenced events. Your finite concept of Essence (yes, finite in terms of a concept), and your sequenced event of Negation is no different. Your ontology could be more understandable if you presented as such and not defer to some logic which is not logic in the conventional sense. It is not insurmountalbe, and is something that is often lacking in mystical speach. Pirsig does his best to present it as he does, God only knows what trauma he went through to use the right modes of messaging. This is a problem with all mystics, and anyone claiming to present an "ultimate" view of reality. If something shows up as "inconsistent" then all Hell breaks loose. There is no difference between a Scientist and a Philosopher, NONE. Both are presenting interpretations of Reality. Both use the exact same techniques, both are grounded in common sense. If you feel that Science is somehow different, then you have been hypnotized by your education. Both of these are "actualizations", both of these are "interpretations", both of these are based on "faith", both of these lead to "belief". NO difference, none what-so-ever, not even in the details. They are all a form of actualization or interpretation or awareness. All are based on the Sensible Self's existence. > > 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. As I expressed above, my rendition of contary is to say that what you present is inconsistent with my understanding based on what you have presented (and my interpretation) in the past. This only means that I seek further understanding. If my methods are too provocative, I can present the same questions in a conciliatory framework. The questions will not change however. Those are concerned with the natures of Essence, Negation, and Self. To describe one using the others through teleological means does not add to my understanding. > > Hoping for a more positive response, My response was intended to be positive in the sense of trying to understand, and I do not reject your ontology, far from it. Adios for now, 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
