[MD] The Edge 2006 Annual Question

[Ham Priday]

Scott --


> Ham,
>
> I would not say that there is a "possibility" of
> contradictory otherness which "becomes actualized
> when there is an awareness to experience it".
> Instead I would say that CI *is* the awareness, the
> experiencing, the actualizing. That's why I see CI as
> being triadic -- one always needs three terms,
> such as 'essence', 'existence', and 'awareness'.
> Essence and existence are a CI that, in contradicting
> one another, create themselves (and each other),
> and which is awareness.

I've been giving a lot of thought to what you said, and actually can see
some merit in it.

I'm not particularly happy with the "possibility-actualized' paradigm,
either.  And I have no problem with the concept that contrariety (your CI)
IS being aware.  But I regard this being-aware as the contingent (inferior
transitional) mode of a non-transitional source.  In other words, I regard
existence as the divided, evolutionary manifestation of Essence.  And, since
I define existence as "that which is experienced as occupying time and
space", I see it as encompassing both subjective awareness and objective
beingness.  With apologies to Peirce, this reduces your triad to the
traditional duality.

> I do not know -- and in fact reject -- that what you
> call "existential experience" is not fundamental reality.
> That is, I do not distinguish "fundamental" reality as a
> separate category of reality. The physical world of objects
> and events is not at all an illusion. The only thing illusory
> about it is that we naturalistically believe that its
> spatiotemporal form is independent of our perception,
> and that these objects are dumb (they are "just there").
> Instead, I say (with Aquinas) that a natural object is a
> something between two intellects. That is, it is a sign,
> the outward manifestation of intellect.

This, of course, avoids having to name a source.  You are asking that we
take existence at face value, except for its differentiation by time and
space.  That's suggestive of pantheism, the belief that reality is the world
as an undivided Whole.  I think this misses not only the Source but
something equally vital to man -- namely, purpose and meaning.

Also I'm not sure what Aquinas meant by "a natural object is a something
between two intellects."  Why does it take two intellects to define what a
single intellect can?  As for natural objects being the "outward
manifestation of intellect", you have me completely baffled.  I can accept
the Pirsigian idea that experience=reality (as long as we're talking about
existential reality); but not intellect=reality.  Whose epistemology is
this, and how does it work?

-Ham