From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 19:14:38 BST
Hello Ham:
>I don't know about these people who take extended intermissions -- or do
>they say "intervals" in The Netherlands like they do in Britain? ;-)
It's interval, and well, between the job, the girlfriend and daughter (not in that order) it's hard to find time to participate in even one thread, let alone many. And I don't think I should rush my answers to you, because I would get slaughtered, metaphysically :-)
>"Inevitability" assumes a result but does not explain its cause. If Newton
>had been content to say it's inevitable that water will run downhill, we
>never would have had a law of gravity.
Who's to say I'm content yet?
>If, as you have stated, duality is a contingency principle indigenous to the
>Absolute, then relations can be explained as "the other side of the coin",
>so to speak. This suggests that Oneness carries "otherness" as its
>"shadow", as would seem to be implied in the "emanations" ontology of
>Plotinus, the "All-Man" of Eastern mysticism, and the negation theories of
>Heidegger and Sartre.
This is not what I mean. Think back about my post about aristotelian logic (which btw didn't get a single response....) I stated that reality was created by a valueing process going from X is null to X = TRUE and !X (not X) = FALSE.
When you reverse this process and 'de-value' every possible statement you can make, by not experiencing it any-more, you'd end up with a collection of A..Z all being null, and thus all being indifferentiated (you could not tell them apart). Which is not the same as an empty collection.
An empty collection would not have any potential.
>
>I'm unwilling to accept this view. For me, the absolute One can not
>inherently possess an other; it can only "negate" otherness. But it cannot
>negate unless its "Oneness" (i.e., Essence) is "negational". I've made that
>stipulation in my thesis, but am not altogether happy with it because it's a
>description from the human perspective. Something has to "trigger"
>Creation;
Whatever description we end up with, it will be human (unless there's something you haven't told me yet Ham, or should I say, Mork?). We cannot expect logic or reason to be capable of providing the answer we're looking for. That's the reason why paradoxes are the main encaptulation of knowledge in eastern mysticism.
Would you be content with a paradox as the answer, while intuitively knowing what's meant by it?
>there has to be a Primary Difference, potentially at least.
Yes, potentially, exactly. That's why I say, it stays potential. Our experience is the 'un-triggered' potential.
>> You rightfully said that in Essence there's no time and space.
>> So our whole starting point is wrong. By asking the 'why'
>> question, we assume a causal relation between an event and
>> a result. Relations broke out because of.....
>> But there is no 'why' to answer, we cannot say 'it happened'
>> just because we experience it. Because Essence has the
>> potential, or the potential of a polarized reality is encompassed
>> in Essence, we realize it. And in realizing that, we create our
>> reality with time and space, thus looking for causal
>> relationships. So what we end up with is a realization of
>> potential, which we call reality.
>> Tell me what you think of this explanation.
>
>I like your reasoning. But I also have a Teleology of Value which is
>transactional -- in other words, it implies a reciprocal relationship
>between an autonomus agent (man) and his primary source. We needn't get
>into this now, except to say that any definition of the absolute Source that
>excludes "subjectivity" will not support that theory. That's why I'm
>insisting that subject and object be represented in Essence as the
>"potential" for Creation.
Well, take awareness then, if there's any potential for differentiation whatsoever, the awareness of the potential alone would be a cause for subjectivity.
>
>> Creation is causal so doesn't apply to 'Oneness'.
>
>But it does apply to the fact that Oneness creates otherness. Out of what?
Oneness has the potential to be percieved as otherness by subjectivity. Why would you want to use the word creation, which implicates change, thus time.
>From what? And this Oneness is absolute (infinite). What happens to
>absolute Oneness when otherness (even 'illusional' otherness) appears with
>it or in it?
It's part of it, and always has been. Oneness stays Oneness.
>I'm not sure I used the term "driving force"; however, negation or denial
>does suggest intent or "will" on the part of Essence.
That's what I meant, sorry the quotation made it look like a quote, but it wasn't. It was my way of saying you said something alike....
> Do you agree, or do
>you see this as an anthropomorphic concept (intellectual copout)? If so,
>can you explain an 'other' arising from 'not-other' by some other principle
>or process?
No arising, no process
potential otherness, subjectively percieved by free will.
>We still need to "clear the air" here with regard to the primary division.
>Meantime, I'll be researching Cusa's original writings for clues.
I'll leave the literature to you, although I'm reading a fascinating book called 'the tao of physics'. Do you know it?
>Thanks for another stimulating discussion.
Likewise.
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
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 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 20:29:50 BST