From: platootje@netscape.net
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 12:20:38 BST
Hello Ham (Bo mentioned),
You wrote:
Perhaps I should have asked, can there be Actuality (existence) without
Potentiality (Essence)?
Me:
There can be no existence without Essence.
You:
My interpretation of the Cusan theory is that "Coincidence is actualized
possibility", and that if actuality did not exist, then nothing could
actually be. Cusa concluded that "things are; therefore actuality
exists."
In other words, Possibility (X) and Actuality (Y) are co-dependent in
the
non-contradictory absolute source (Essence). Since both contingencies
(X +
Y) are absolute in Essence (E), there can be no case in which E = (X -
Y) or
E = (Y - X). Thus, the very nature of Essence is the coincidence of
Potentiality and Actuality. Coincidence is a constant.
Me:
But the question 'does actuality exists' is an existential question
about existence. A question like 'how long does time last' or 'how big
is space'. It's a snake eating its own tail.
So for me the whole question is a false starting point.
Essence is the whole of everything but un-valued. Existence is valueing
and thus differentiating.
Me earlier:
> I don't distinguish between actuality and potential.
> The actualization is the realization (awareness) of the potential.
You:
I think we must make this distinction if Actuality and Potentiality are
the
absolute contingency. We must account for the absence of awareness,
such in
the pre-biological cosmos, at which period there is no actuality and,
hence,
no contingency.
Me:
That's where the MoQ fits in from my PoV. Even without a single living
creature, the process of valueing existed. Awareness may involve
valueing on an intellectual level, but valueing as such, by Pirsig's
words, takes place on all levels. Pre-intellecutal existence, so to say.
You:
You may feel that I'm arguing over straws here, but to be precise in
defining the primary source we must be prepared to answer the question:
What
happens to Essence when it is not actualized? It seems to me that
unless
the awareness that we call "existence" is ALWAYS actualized, the
coincidence
definition of Essence falls apart. If our experienced universe is
finite in
time, the only solution I can propose is that there must be other
experienced universes which overlap ours so that there is no gap in
experience (actualized awareness).
Me:
Not only is our experienced univers finit in time, but time in itself
is at best finit if existing as independed entity at all (more likely
it's an property of existence). The potential is timeless and
spaceless, it's only our realization of it that creates time and space.
You:
I regard "patterns" as an intellectual construct that is
peculiar to the MoQ thesis. Since I don't recognize patterns, I
translate
your statement as encouraging a "higher", more developed sensibility to
Value. If, by Buddhistic standards, Nirvana is understood to be the
highest
possible sensibility -- sensibility of ("oneness with") the value of
Essence
itself, then any lesser sensibility is of the SOM type. I remain
somewhat
skeptical of the possibility of this psychic state.
Me:
Regarding the SOM reference, I guess this is what Bo means when he
states that the intellectual level is SOM. Any though or idea comes
from a subject, regarding itself as such. The awareness is responsible
for the subject/object division.
Indeed the buddhistic enlightment experience will overcome this, and
are you sceptic about that?
Quatum physics is leaning very close towards a patterned description of
the universe, likewise is eastern mysticism.
There is no such thing as substance.
You:
For practical purposes, I define Value as the affinity for certain
attributes of "beingness" that are presented to us in experience.
Realization of Value is a psycho-emotional response of the subject to
objective reality (existence). This is what I mean by Value being the
"second-hand" or "once removed" experience of Essence. All value
alludes to
Essence -- is ultimately derived from Essence -- but, in common
experience
at least, Value is "relational" in that it has an objective referent.
While
Essence metaphysically is the ultimate Value, it can be only be realized
incrementally in human awareness.
But that suffices to make Value the essence of man's reality.
Me:
The hot-stove example is misleading, because it very much emphasizes
that kind of valueing. Like/dislike type of valueing. My concept of
valueing is more in the lines of X is NULL versus X = true or false.
Once something has a value, it's known, it can be seperated from other
things that have value.
You:
I don't think we're ready to confront the MoQers with a Primary
Difference
hypothesis until we can come to some agreement on the contiguity of
existential awareness.
Me:
Well, then we still have some work to do ;-)
You:
But possibly you can persuade me. I've lost some of your original
arguments
of behalf of the theory of "opposition". Would you refresh my mind on
that
theory? It could be that Cusanus has led us up a blind ally.
Me:
Hopefully some of my remarks in this post have refreshed it. If not,
any perticular question? I've found that I make myself the most clear
when responding to question.
You:
Your ideas are much appreciated, Reinier.
Me:
Likewise Ham, likewise!
Kind regards,
Reinier.
__________________________________________________________________
Look What The New Netscape.com Can Do!
Now you can preview dozens of stories and have the ones you select
delivered to you without ever leaving the Top Home Page. And the new
Tool Box gives you one click access to local Movie times, Maps, White
Pages and more. See for yourself at
http://netcenter.netscape.com/netcenter/
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 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 12:30:51 BST