From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 06:06:18 BST
Reinier --
Part 2: More reverberations from the 'epiphany'...
You said:
> This is what I mean by saying duality includes a monism (as opposite
> to itself) but a monism does not include a duality.
Something about that statement bothers me, and I think it's the word
"include(s)". Would you be happy with "is in reality" in the first half of
your sentence? I suggest that substitution because existential experience
contains a great deal more than duality: you've got micro and macro
differentiation, an ordered system of objects arranged in space/time,
cause-and-effect that is universally predictable, biological evolution,
thermo-dynamics, and every other relational function that has or will become
a field for scientific investigation.
As to the assertion that "monism does not include a duality", I would prefer
to say "monism encompasses duality". This may seem contradictory to you,
but unless there is a "potential" for duality in the monistic source, it
cannot give rise to existence. We'd then have to look elsewhere for a
creator, and there is no elsewhere.
I think we've arrived at that phase of our ontology that can be called
"working toward the split".
We have posited Essence as the immutable primary source, but have given it
no purpose other than that of Creator. We know that it creates because
that's what a primary source does, so the logic for our argument is
circular. We have different theories about HOW it creates, however. You
seem to think that an undifferentiated, non-contradictory Essence has a
potential for duality by implication, as if by some universal principle
built into it. That would make the breakout of relations (i.e., existential
reality) automatic and involuntary.
My conception of creation is somewhat different. I think Essence has a
"need" -- and I use that term advisedly -- to sense its "absoluteness" from
the perspective of the infinitesimal. In other words, I don't think
existence occurs so much by "natural law" as by what theologists would call
"divine will". Possibly I've been influenced too much by Eckhart, but I see
"denial of otherness" written all over the primary source. Now I know
denial is a human attribute, and am not about to portray Essence as an
anthropomorphic entity. At the same time, there is something to be said for
the "negation" theory apart from the use of negation in a logical syllogism.
For one thing, it supports the teleology that we all recognize in nature but
that the MoQers have to define as "experience at the biological and
inorganic levels".
Although we've done away with polarity (duality), I believe Essence
represents (in finite terms at least) a synthesis of opposites, that is,
"objectivity-realized", "being-aware", "value-embodied", etc. All of these
conceptions are non-contradictory, yet they afford Essence a certain
"character" plus the potential whereby division (difference) arises. That's
what is meant by "all-encompassing". In the human being subjectivity is the
awareness of an other as beingness. This represents a subject/object
duality. In Essence subject and object are still present, but unified as
One. If the constituents of duality were absent, Essence would be a blank
slate -- absolute nothingness. Which is why several MoQers have poo-pooed
the notion of an undefinable Essence as the primary source. They claim what
I'm defining is nothing at all!
Of course we are incapable of characterizing the ineffable. We lack the
empirical evidence to even prove there is an ultimate source. So what I'm
proposing here is only a working hypothesis. How do you feel about it? Do
you see this as going out on a limb to force a conclusion? Or do you think
that a mathematical formula or set of universal principles could explain the
concept with more credibility?.
I'd better wait for your reaction before proceeding further. For all I
know, you'll poo-poo my concept too.
Essentially yours,
Ham
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 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 06:16:51 BST