[MD] metaphysics, substance, intellect

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe (Ron mentioned) --


On Sunday July 15th, Joe responds to Ham:

> What is metaphysics? IMO the uncreated is outside the scope
> of metaphysics. A Faith based system is used to discuss the one
> uncreated, or the many uncreated. From this point of view DQ is
> not God or Essence (Plato’s world of ideas). In Pirsig’s terms
> DQ is a template of order (level). Is this beyond metaphysical validity?
> Order is created. The void is uncreated. Number in a void is
> uncreated. Number in order is created and defined.
> Is non thing the same as nothing?

Metaphysics, as you surely know, is the study of reality beyond the physical 
world.  That also means beyond the relational aspects of finite experience, 
such as creation and process.
If the "uncreated" is outside the scope of metaphysics, where then does it 
belong?   You say "faith-based system", but is not all of metaphysics 
hypothetical?  Or do you see a difference between a creation hypothesis 
based on intuitive logic and a belief system based on faith?

I think what you are rejecting is not faith but idealism.  And the idealism 
of Plato sought the meaning and purpose of existence, which a "template of 
order (level)" really does not.  If order is created, what is its creator or 
source?  Without a primary source there is no purpose implied or intended. 
So why are you seeking it?

When Eckhart said "the beginning of multiplicity is negation," he was not 
talking about a void but about a denial of the source that creates 
Difference.  Man is differentiated (negated) out of Essence.  I don't know 
how you can have number in a void, but it is man who is 'the measure of all 
things', who defines and numbers all things, and who perceives order in the 
result.

You also made a number of assertions to Ron. most of which don't make sense 
to me:

> DQ is a metaphor for quality, value. 1 is manifest quality.
> DQ is perceived metaphorically, and perception does not define
> the boundaries of quality. Perception defines 1.
> 0 does not represent all things or nothing. 0 is different from one
> in that one is defined and 0 is undefined. Rounding off does not
> set a limit to undefined quality. The change of perception which
> occurs with a new number is due to quality, not rounding off.
> Mystical experience points the finger at that change of perception
> which then becomes a memory of self.
> DQ boundaries of the level determine the perception of memories
> of self. Numbers run off to infinity from definition and are not self.
> Quality changes the definition. The periodic table does not change
> the definition of number and is not self.
> What are the limits of metaphysics?

As I said previously, mathematics and numbers are human constructs of 
"order" in the physical world, therefore cannot be fundamental to 
metaphysics.  What is your justification (beyond "faith") for defining 1 as 
"manifest quality" and "Perception"?  Why is "one" defined and "zero" not? 
Are not all numbers defined as elements of an arithmetical system?  (I'll 
skip the references to "rounding off" which only compounds your quandary.) 
You also seem to be suggesting that
memory is a mystical experience.  And the significance of the periodic table 
in this conext escapes me.

Before you draw conclusions about universal templates and numerical values, 
you must resolve the question of how difference arises from Oneness.  This 
is not a mathematical puzzle; it's metaphysical.  All relations depend on 
it, not the least of which is the individual's relation to the primary 
source.  I find logic in the Cusan theory that Oneness (Essence) is the 
coincidence of all difference.  I also believe, with Hegel, that actualized 
existence is the negation of difference from which nothingness becomes the 
differentiator.

Finally, contrary to Pirsig's metaphor, Value cannot be the primary source 
because, like awareness, it always has an objective referent and is 
relational.  Instead I maintain that man is created as a sensible subject 
apart from Essence so that he can make value aware objectively.
Without an actualized relational system this would not be possible.  Neither 
would the freedom and autonomy that every individual is granted in 
existence.

I submit that this system holds the meaning and purpose you are looking for, 
and that you are living smack in the middle of it.

Thanks, Joe.  And good luck with your mathematical ontology.

--Ham