[MD] The SOL-ution

[David M]

Hi Case

Maybe/maybe not. When Plato
did this sort of thing he kicked off stuff
we are still not over with. You underestimate
the power of ideas out of nothing. Although
most ideas disemerge as quickly as they emerged.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOL-ution


> Ham, with apologies to Bo,
>
> I have no dog in this fight other than to point out that this is a classic
> example of tales spun of fantasy as mentioned in the thread next door.
>
> "...the logic of an absolute, immutable source." This "logic" seems little
> more than a questionable interpretation of a 15th century bishop.
>
> Worse, it seems your "ontology" is fabricated primarily to support a 
> dubious
> conclusion arrived at before you began fabricating it. Namely that
> "Fundamental reality is uncreated Essence."
>
> "...sound and fury signifying nothing."
>
> Case
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Hey, Bo --
>
>
>> Yes, the physical world and metaphysical reality are
>> indeed woven from the same cloth. Very well put,
>> even if I would have dropped "physical" because
>> physical/mental is intellect spinning its endless S/O yarn.
>> [snip]
>> If you insist on the subject/object dichotomy as
>> fundamental you are at least honest, more than those
>> who constantly yelp about Quality, but are staunch
>> SOM-ists. But again Quality=Reality or Essence=Reality,
>> what does that matter? Why not just call it Reality?
>> It's the dynamic/static divide that counts.
>>
>> I don't know how you go on from the Essence=Reality
>> postulate, but it sounds as if it is S/O-divided.
>> Now, please follow my reasoning:
>> A "subjectiv/objective essence" metaphysics is
>> indistinguishable from SOM, as is a "dynamic/static
>> essence" from the MOQ. The fallacy of an Essence
>> or a Quality that can be arbitrary split stems from
>> diagrams beginning with the motorcycle (ZMM p. 93)
>
> I follow your reasoning.  But you have forgotten our earlier discussions 
> in
> which I outlined my ontology to you.  The subject/object dichotomy is NOT
> fundamental or "arbitrary"; it's secondary or "contingent".  Here is MY
> reasoning:
> Fundamental reality is uncreated Essence.  The division is a negation of
> Essence which creates the appearance of being by a non-essence 
> (awareness).
> The S/O dichotomy is a "reductive", valuistic perspective of the primary
> source which does not impugn its absolute integrity.  I base this 
> hypothesis
> on Cusan logic which states that the 'first principle' [Essence] can not 
> be
> other than any [created] other; which is to say, Essence is the 
> 'not-other'.
>
> All this talk about levels and patterns of Quality evades the logic of an
> absolute, immutable source.  Quality (value) itself is a contingency of 
> the
> primary division: it is man's essential link to the Absolute Source.
>
>> As said Essence=Reality is perfect with me.
>> I may even agree with you about "Quality an S/O
>> appraisal" because Pirsig abandoned Phaedrus'
>> insight and made Quality a mere S/O subset.
>
> Ham, previously:
>> I can live with that concept, despite the common
>> understanding of "quality" as an S/O appraisal.
>> For me, Essence is a much more appropriate term
>> for the primary source because it suggests
>> "necessary" without presupposing a subject.
>
> Bo:
>> I don't think you understand: If you divide Essence
>> S/O-ishly it's good old SOM and nothing is gained
>> while an Essence - or if you insist on turning it upside
>> down - STATIC ESSENCE differentiated into the
>> known DYNAMIC levels it will make for a perfect
>> metaphysics.
>
> Again, the appearance of being as an otherness does not divide fundamental
> (essential) reality.  It is only a reduced perspective of that reality. 
> The
> existence of contrariety is a fragmented perspective that does not impugn 
> or
> diminish the Absolute Source.
>
>> Awareness a S/O (intellect) phenomenon, you bet,
>> but not in your arch-somish sense. And the level hierarchy
>> works perfectly, whatever SOM-generated problem I
>> direct it at dissolves. But one must come over the
>> "awareness" myth - that we wake up to a God's Eye view
>> when we emerge from sleep.
>
> The finite (human) perspective is hardly a "God's eye" view.  Sleep is a
> good metaphor for our everyday experience: our dreams of objectivized
> beingness are woven from our sense of Value.  Ultimately, we will "wake 
> up"
> to realize that we were (are) this Value eternally.
>
> (IMO)
>
> -- Ham
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>