[MD] subject/object: pragmatism

[David M]

Hi Ham

> Your efforts to disprove my premises show me that I have at least 
> intrigued
> you.  (This is the third message you've posted to me, the other two being
> repeats.)

DM: I am just trying to see where our agreements end and differences begin.


>> I'd prefer:
>> everything comes from nothing
>> both the undifferentiated and differentiated exist
>> therefore the dualism of number 3 is unnecessary

 Your "preferred" syllogism refutes
> common logic.

DM: No it doesn't. I may fail to fully express myself but
there is nothing very difficult in coming up with a different
set of assumption that are logical. The idea that logic would
be a way to settle these differences I am trying to explain strikes
me as absurd. Have you nothing better to say?

> 1)  "Everything comes from nothing.
> There is no magic in the world by which nothing produces something -- not 
> in
> natural science, physics, or mathematics.   About this Wikipedia says:
> "Nothing comes from nothing is a philosophical expression of a thesis 
> first
> argued by Parmenides, often stated in its Latin form: ex nihilo nihil fit.
> Today, the idea is loosely associated with the laws of conservation of 
> mass
> and energy.  In logic, nothing is represented by the empty set, and it is
> trivially true that no thing (any defined concept or element) can be
> extracted from such a set.

DM: There is a book by George Steiner called Grammars of Creation about this
topic covering every period of human cultural history and how this concept
of creation from nothing has been understood, so I beg to differ.



>
> 2)  "Both the undifferentiated and differentiated exist."
> Can you provide an example of an existent that is not differentiated?  The
> statement is simply not true.

DM: Everything is differentiated, yet all experience is an undivided one,
and in this way the Same.


>
> 3)  "Therefore the dualism of number 3 is unnecessary."
> This contradicts your #2 which says that "both the undifferentiated and 
> the
> differentiated exist."

DM: Yes as one and the same, as a whole that can be divided, if you want to
see a contradiction here you can, try and grasp what I am saying and then
argue why your conception is better, the idea of refutation here is 
inappropriate
and silly. Try this, a single cell can differentiate itself into a whole and
very differentiated body.


> I stated that Essence is the integration of difference because it is the
> only instance of non-differentiation.  You can argue that Essence is
> hypothetical, but your assertions do not prove that my conclusion is 
> untrue.

DM: I gave an an alternative not a refutation. I dislike your suggestion 
because
it requires someother realm where the many has a single essencial source.
Such a division seems unnecessary. Why do you think we need it?
I suggest that we experience the unity of existence-reality so we need
no inexperienceable realm.

>
> You may "prefer" to believe there is no metaphysical reality, as many
> nihilists do, but you cannot logically account for existence by saying 
> that
> it is derived from nothing.

DM: Your logic makes assumptions about nothing that I do not. Another
logic (set of assumptions) is possible. Otherwise send your theory to
Nature for peer review.


  Without a primary source, either there is no
> existence or there has always been existence.  (If it is any comfort, some
> cosmologists subscribe to the latter notion.)

DM: Correct, they do, and the source is Nothing.