On Sunday 15 July 2007 11:04:30 PM Ham writes to Joe [Ham] Metaphysics, as you surely know, is the study of reality beyond the physical world. That also means beyond the relational aspects of finite experience, such as creation and process. If the "uncreated" is outside the scope of metaphysics, where then does it belong? You say "faith-based system", but is not all of metaphysics hypothetical? Or do you see a difference between a creation hypothesis based on intuitive logic and a belief system based on faith?
Hi Ham and all, [Joe] How many worlds do you propose beyond the physical world? Are you proposing relative-absolute division between physics and metaphysics? I accept a natural supernatural-division hence a faith based system for the supernatural. I introduce the periodic table which proposes only one reality of addition, no metaphysics. IMO One does not explain everything and metaphysics is not uncreated. Neither is it hypothetical! Like a Code of Art it is a template or law for evolution. [Ham] I think what you are rejecting is not faith but idealism. And the idealism of Plato sought the meaning and purpose of existence, which a "template of order (level)" really does not. If order is created, what is its creator or source? Without a primary source there is no purpose implied or intended. So why are you seeking it? [Joe] IMO you are using "creation" in two ways. Intuitive logic called creativity can only make previously unseen associations in the manifest. Creation from the unmanifest is the subject of faith. If something is unmanifest it is beyond intuitive logic by definition. Dq is unmanifest in relation to Sq-manifest. By itself Dq is undefined. It remains undefined though present in the order of evolution. Dq as a template, as a law of evolution exists. If order is created what is its creator or source? The acceptance of levels is acknowledged as an added dimension. Evolution, dimensionality, may mask as creation. The entire life of the earth is a dimension I cannot experience. That dimension is beyond me and the earth has more possibilities than I do for life. Yet the life of the planet is not without order. The Solar system is orderly. Why must I posit a primary source since the order of the planet is more than I can grasp? I do not want to deny what is closer to me to dwell on what is farther away. [Ham] When Eckhart said "the beginning of multiplicity is negation," he was not talking about a void but about a denial of the source that creates Difference. Man is differentiated (negated) out of Essence. I don't know how you can have number in a void, but it is man who is 'the measure of all things', who defines and numbers all things, and who perceives order in the result. [Joe] The beginning of multiplicity is also observation. I deny that I live as long as the earth or the solar system lives. [Ham] You also made a number of assertions to Ron. most of which don't make sense to me: > DQ is a metaphor for quality, value. 1 is manifest quality. > DQ is perceived metaphorically, and perception does not define > the boundaries of quality. Perception defines 1. > 0 does not represent all things or nothing. 0 is different from one > in that one is defined and 0 is undefined. Rounding off does not > set a limit to undefined quality. The change of perception which > occurs with a new number is due to quality, not rounding off. > Mystical experience points the finger at that change of perception > which then becomes a memory of self. > DQ boundaries of the level determine the perception of memories > of self. Numbers run off to infinity from definition and are not self. > Quality changes the definition. The periodic table does not change > the definition of number and is not self. > What are the limits of metaphysics? As I said previously, mathematics and numbers are human constructs of "order" in the physical world, therefore cannot be fundamental to metaphysics. What is your justification (beyond "faith") for defining 1 as "manifest quality" and "Perception"? Why is "one" defined and "zero" not? Are not all numbers defined as elements of an arithmetical system? (I'll skip the references to "rounding off" which only compounds your quandary.) You also seem to be suggesting that memory is a mystical experience. And the significance of the periodic table in this conext escapes me. [Joe] The periodic table assumes that my life and the life of the planet are the same. An extended life is simply addition or subtraction. The periodic table does not support dimensions. 1 is within a dimension, manifest. 0 is outside of dimensions, yet it is meaningful as a non thing in its upholding of the essence and existence in a manifestation. [Ham] Before you draw conclusions about universal templates and numerical values, you must resolve the question of how difference arises from Oneness. This is not a mathematical puzzle; it's metaphysical. All relations depend on it, not the least of which is the individual's relation to the primary source. I find logic in the Cusan theory that Oneness (Essence) is the coincidence of all difference. I also believe, with Hegel, that actualized existence is the negation of difference from which nothingness becomes the differentiator. Finally, contrary to Pirsig's metaphor, Value cannot be the primary source because, like awareness, it always has an objective referent and is relational. Instead I maintain that man is created as a sensible subject apart from Essence so that he can make value aware objectively. Without an actualized relational system this would not be possible. Neither would the freedom and autonomy that every individual is granted in existence. [Joe] Value is outside of dimensions and upholds essence and existence in a manifestation. Order comes before manifestation and value comes before order. I do not see sufficient reason to place man in the same order as the solar system. [Ham] I submit that this system holds the meaning and purpose you are looking for, and that you are living smack in the middle of it. Thanks, Joe. And good luck with your mathematical ontology. [Joe] Man evolves to a different destiny from the solar system. Perhaps a collision with a comet broke the moon away from earth. The Earth creates organic life as a teat for the starving moon so it doesn’t go wandering off creating further trouble. This is supposed to be fun! Let go! Joe --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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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/
