> Ham also said:
> > Negation is the beginning of number, difference,
> process and modality,
> > none of which is integral to the absolute source.
[Ham]
> Evolution is a process which can be defined as the
incremental
> change of nature or mankind as perceived in time and
space. As
> such it is dynamic, that is, subject to the physical
laws and
> conditions of existential reality (also,
incidentally, defined by man).
Your saying evolution is "subject to the physical
laws and conditions of existential reality".
Evolution "is dynamic". Right? If so, then I would
put it this way, which differs. Evolution is NOT
"subject", but is apart of the process. Evolution is
within the process. Evolution is not presided over by
a Lord. According to you, evolution is only this so
called Lord's "subject".
[Ham]
> To impute the limitations of finitude on the
infinite source is to deny > that reality is anything
but "the way we experience it", or that there is > any
such thing as reality beyond the physical world.
"the way we experience it"? What's wrong with
this? What does this mean to you, clearly something
different than I?
or "beyond the physical world"? Even Pirsig
points out that there is a world that is social,
intellectual, and directly experienced (dq), which
clearly points out a world that is not solely a
physical world.
[Ham]
> Perhaps that explains why Pirsig refused to support
his thesis with a > metaphysical ontology.
A reality existence? It is here - now.
[Ham]
> Had he done so, he would have had to either refute
or affirm an
> uncreated source, in either case offending his
acolytes.
This dilemma of an uncreated source is your
dilemma and thus, your need aroused by your desire,
therefore - boom! - Essence. Right? Why everybody
has to be philosophically involved in your dilemma I'm
not sure.
[Ham]
> In common parlance, that which changes or is in in
transition is
> "dynamic". That which is constant and immutable is
"static".
And yet the MoQ explains static as that which can
change via dq. Your Essence was changed in definition
by you, and you readily admit that YOUR Essence is
different from the Essence of Aristotle, right? So,
why not change ones perception in how static and
dynamic are to philosophically be understood, too?
Isn't that what philosophy is? A perceptual change,
especially if the philosophy is an understanding of
reality under a NEW line of reasoning and definitional
admission.
[Ham]
> Poetic metaphors and euphemisims not accepted.
That don't change what Essence is. You haven't
come up with a new philosophy. Your just defending an
old philosophy called Essentialism if one is to follow
your reasoning in these last two comments by you.
[Ham]
> Does this at least convince you of the logic of my
position?
Sure, your just defending what YOU want reality
to be.
By the way, that's what we all do.
woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!
http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
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/
