From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 01:44:06 GMT
Ham,
Ham said:
But Scott's "ubiquitous" (absolute) Consciousness, like Quality or Value,
has to be defined in a special way to avoid the content normally suggested
by these terms. Moreover, to make the chosen term meaningful, it should be
capable of supporting a teleology for creation. In other words, there
should be not only a plausible explanation for creation but a "reason" for
it, as well. We don't have this in the MOQ. Which is why the debate goes
on interminably.
Scott:
I kind of figured the capitalization works to make the distinction, since
definition doesn't work at this rarified atmosphere. Another possibility is
to speak of "absolute" versus "relative" consciousness.
I'm not sure what you think counts as an ontology. I think my answer is:
contradictory identity (not essence, not existence, not essence and
existence, not neither essence nor existence).
How can you get a general teleology for creation? Doesn't this lead to a
regress to the unanswerable: why anything rather than nothing? If you insist
on some general answer, mine would be creation for creation's sake. A
rationale for specific cases will depend on the specifics.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 02:04:03 GMT