[MD] Sneddon Thesis

[Ham Priday]

SA --

> I reverse what seems to be differentiated by noticing
> how this universe is as such due to differentiation
> canceling each other out endlessly, in other words,
> never-getting-to-the-bottom-of-this.

Positive charges cancel out negatives, rainfall cancels out drought,
sunlight cancels out darkness, wisdom cancels out foolishness, death cancels
out life, and vice-versa, endlessly.  But the ebb and flow of cosmic events
is the difference that keeps the universe IN balance.  It is not the sort of
thing that one can reconcile or "reverse" intellectually.  What I meant by
an "unbalanced system" is that nothing in the cosmos is at rest.

Like Case's idea of Chaos, the "imprecison" or irregularities of Nature
cause it to be a dynamic system in a constant state of flux.  There is
always some available energy or field to push things "out of their natural
balance" or physical state.  The theroretical end of this system is
entropy -- when the matter and energy of the universe are dissipated in an
ultimate state of inert uniformity.  If entropy ever becomes an actual
historical event, mankind will be long gone before it occurs.

The point I was trying to make in my comments on Sneddon's thesis can be
summed up in two sentences: Whitehead was right in describing the
experiential world as "process".  He was wrong in assuming that process is
the essence of reality.

> You go on to say negate negates its own nothingness,
> thus, nothing negates nothing, yes, strange.  I've read it
> put this way before.  It is strange.  How do we
> understand what is strange?  We come to know it, and
> then, it may be this way always, we try to explain it,
> but can't. ...
>
> So, you say negate negates.  How nothing negates
> nothing, and yet, makes sense to you.  Oh,
> that is strange.

My hypothesis is that the negation of absolute nothingness yields (creates)
a continuum grounded in nothingness and extending between the mathematical
limits of zero and infinity.  You can call this continuum  Existence or
Finitude.  It is a multiplistic system due to the nothingness that
differentiates it.  The primary difference is the separation of awareness
(the "negate") from a perceived "otherness" that is really Essence, whose
value is objectivized as "beingness".

The negate is essentially a nothingness which acquires the value of the
beings it negates from Essence.  In other words, by negating the phenomena
of its own physical reality, the negate ultimately reclaims the value lost
in its creation.  In mathematical terms, this "double negation" nullifies or
cancels out the original negation as well as the dichotomy that divided the
negate from its absolute source.

> So, what I'm saying is, I think I get what your sayin'.
> I even notice your motive, which is to get beyond the
> dichotomies (remember I asked you what your motive
> was long ago, but you avoided that question for
> some reason).

Sorry, but I didn't understand by the word "motive" that you meant my moral
paradigm or scenario.  (Motive usually implies an agenda from which one
gains personal power or prestige.)  Yes, I do have a moral paradigm, as I
tried to outline for you and Marsha in my post on Essentialism:

[Ham on 11/27]:
> My philosophy of Essence has a morality too: It holds
> that man is free to choose his values, and thereby shape
> the world by his decisions.  If the universe were perfectly
> "moral", there would be no free choice: we would all be
> bound (progammed) to act in accordance with perfection.
> Obviously, this isn't the case.  We can't survive as
> independent creatures without evaluating the choices that
> ensure our survival.  But we are all FREE to "make
> mistakes", to live immorally, to reject (or fail to recognize)
> goodness, and choose "poor quality" or evil values.
> Ultimately, it is the values we choose in life that determine
> our essential reality.

[SA continues]:
> How to stay clear minded?  How to stay
> were the dichotomies will cease being such a
> distraction to this ultimate reality?  How we avoid
> dichotomying in order to explain ultimate reality?
> How we avoid saying being-nothing, negate negates
> and thus, being?  Sure, rhetorical questions, but none
> the less, none the more, isn't this what we're doing
> being rhetorical by using dichotomies to explain a
> non-dichotomy?  I am guilty of this also.

Admittedly these concepts are not easy to explain or comprehend, and it's
possible that my vocabulary is inadequate to properly articulate them.  But
I would not say that I've tried to express them through "rhetorical
questions". When I say "dichotomy" I MEAN dichotomy.  Since no other term
expresses the relationship of subjective awareness to objective otherness as
precisely, it shouldn't be avoided.  As for Being and Nothingness, they have
been used by philosophers from Plato to Heidegger to explain the
fundamentals of reality.

It is my contention that a philosopher should be free to use whatever terms
he chooses, so long as he provides precise definitions, which I make an
effort to do.  Incidentally, I don't accept the idea that some words are so
"sacred" that their meaning is destroyed by defining them.  That's either
laziness or fear of rejection on the part of the author.

Thanks for your response to my analysis.  It appears that you did get
something out of it.

Cheers,
Ham