[Ham]
> I recognize that MoQ and Essentialism are two
> different philosophies, but
> I'm also aware that one of them (for the author's
> stated reasons) lacks the
> support of a metaphysical ontology.
I don't know if you caught what I meant or not.
What I'm saying is this negation/affirmation held
together by Value called reciprocal view or in other
words a principle of Essence, this is how we've had
difficulty before. You and I had difficulty due to
the emphasis you held on negation and finite beingness
conceptional view. I was, I believe from what your
trying to say here with this principle of reciprocal
view, I was coming from the affirmation view (you the
negation view). Thus, within these reciprocal views,
without having a strong footing on a view outside
these reciprocal views, you and I had difficulty in
discussing. The negation view and the affirmation
view, though of one principle called reciprocal
principle, are views with such different perspectives
that if we stick with only one of these views and we
meet somebody with the opposing view in this
principle, then it may appear that we are arguing over
a metaphysical view of reality, in other words, one of
these views would appear to be better than the other.
What helps with this reciprocal principle is that
these two views (negation and affirmation) are not
arguing, but actually discussing the same reality,
just in different ways. The distinction of these
views, therefore, is not a distinction of total
separation, one must win over the other, but a
distinction where co-existence happens: co-existence
of these two views. Now, by me saying 'where
co-existence happens' I might be viewing from the
affirmation view, but this does not rid the negation
view according to the reciprocal principle.
[Ham]
> In other words,
> the MoQ posits no cause
> or source for what it calls Dynamic Quality, and one
> is left to decide for
> himself whether this non-entity is self-created, an
> eternal principle, or a
> euphemistic paradigm. Since the "levels" of quality
> are obviously arbitrary
> and subject to much debate, I don't regard them as
> essential to the Quality
> hypothesis and dismiss them.
I don't find them essential, but I don't dismiss
them. As to the arbitrariness of dq, well, I agree it
leaves much 'up in the air' so to speak.
[Ham]
> I'm running an essay on the reciprocity of negation
> vs. affirmation on this
> week's Value Page at
> www.essentialism.net/balance.htm which you might
> want
> to review.
Your not really saying negation vs. affirmation
as in a game where a winner exists when the clock hits
zero, are you? I don't think you are, but I just want
to make sure.
[Ham]
> Basically, Essentialism is one
> philosophy that deals with two
> realities. One is experiential, divided,
> conditional, and made of finite
> beingness. The other is absolute, undivided,
> unconditional, and essential
> (as the primary source).
Yes, two realities, or two perspectives of one
reality. I know what you mean.
[Ham]
> The only thing that links these two realities
> together is the Value of the division between them.
> Thus, while it is
> negation that divides, it is the Value realized by
> the negated subject that
> unites.
I don't propose I understand "Value realized by
the negated subject", therefore I can't support this
statement.
[Ham]
> I propose that this is a metaphysical
> principle that is just as
> true as the physical law of the conservation of
> energy. But, again, I make
> no claim for "absolute truth"; it is only my
> hypothesis.
ok.
[SA previously]
> > long time no talk
[Ham]
> I've been maintaining "silence" in deference to the
> request you made some
> time ago. But, as you see, I'm always willing to
> respond to relevant
> questions, especially those that concern my
> philosophy.
I never say silence. I talk about quiet, though.
Silence is an experience where any sound, philosophy,
and any 'thing' is not experienced. I don't think
this latter ever happens. Yet, in this quiet all
happens. I was talking about quietness with you, but
in this quiet talk happens, thus, maintaining
'silence' was your choice. In this quiet, birds
freeing roam, philosophers chat, and snow settles
gently on the earth.
[Ham]
> Thanks for your continued interest, SA.
Thanks for responding. My interest has always
been in light of what I can understand according to my
living philosophy, as yours has probably been in light
of your thesis. I've always been interested in
'bridging' our gap. I've used the bridge analogy a
long time ago with you in which I'm trying to describe
this reality, in which I experience, that is
'together' and 'connected'. As of now, it seems, this
experience I've been trying to describe to you, is an
experience that falls under the affirmation aspect of
the reciprocal principle you mention. This
affirmation would rid S and O divide, right? And you
know that's where I've always been coming from in my
perspective, and with this larger bridge/principle in
which your trying to show how affirmation and negation
'come together' is helpful in 'bridging' your view and
my view so we may communicate more effectively, I
believe.
thanks.
snow not falling at this moment,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
