[MD] dualism redux(to Ham)

[Ron Kulp]

Ham,
Don't know how I got lumped in there with this thread,I have been
keeping out of this one
 the only time I mentioned essentialism
Was in regard to dmb's post on eagletons god delusion. Which I posted:

" Dmb,
I'll take a stab at it, I think Eagleton is using the old defence
against atheism, why not anything at all?
He seems to be using existence itself as validation for a god and that
god is distinguishable by it's  antithesis, nothingness.. This tie's in
with Ham's thoughs on Essentialism.
perhaps you and Ham should beat this one around."

I really think you're onto something with essentialism,which I stated in
my last post in the thread
"essentialism", I do not remember making those other comments unless
they were before our discussions.

I posted last in the essentialism thread:

[Ham}
 I would like to think that quantum theory has at least suggested the
answer I stated above.  But I don't expect Science to accept this answer
because of its objectivist methodology.  I have more hope for Philosophy
-- especially for "qualitative" ontologies like the MoQ.  Unfortunately,
the lack of a well-developed metaphysics leaves us hanging in the limbo
of levels and patterns of Quality with no ultimate source, cause, or
purpose.  What we have is a euphemistic "feel-good" scenario that
replaces religion for those who can accept "betterness" as a universal
principle.  If our spirituality demands  something more, there's always
Mysticism.
{x]
Hmmmmm,  what Quantum theory suggests and what Essentialism provides
does seem to go together plus it Encompasses SOM and accounts for value
patterns. Ham ole bean, I do believe you have something here.
It certainly deserves closer scrutiny.

[Ham]
What we have is a euphemistic "feel-good" scenario that replaces
religion for those who can accept "betterness" as a universal principle.

[x]
This was my response also, and has been a bone of contention, how close
is "betterness" to "goodness"
And from there to theism? Which was my next question to Micah, since he
was a staunch atheist but Saw value in "betterness". It seems a contrary
position IMO.

Thanks Ham
I do apologize for forwarding you in on the eagleton discussion but 
I understand there was a millon dollars being offered.

I just wanted to clear this up because It is important to me
For you to know that I take you seriously and I believe I understand
Essentialism and those words were not mine.I think I've worked hard
At this and do not want to jeopordize future exchanges with you on this
Matter.
-Ron


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ham Priday
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:20 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] dualism redux

Ron, Horse, Kevin, Craig, et al --

A variety of opinions have been offered on this topic, and while
everyone seems to agree that dualism must be reduced to a monism, there
is little if any agreement as to what a dualism is.

For example, Ron said:
> Dualism, from my point of view, is any formal system of thought or 
> behavior that approaches reality as if it were divided into parts.  
> Subject/object metaphysics is clearly dualistic.  Science and 
> mathematics as well as religious and political institutions are 
> dualistic.

He also thanked me for something I never said:
> [I]f a person approaches reality as if it were of separate parts or 
> finite (thank you Ham for making this distinction) then they are 
> behaving dualistically.

Horse said:
> Intellectual patterns of value are Dualistic The Metaphysics of 
> Quality is Dualistic

Kevin said:
> [T]here's reality (one part) and
> there's the system that points to reality (second part).

Ian said:
> Lila is the whole, ZMM is the part which contains the whole.

Let me say first that dualism always denotes two (as in "dual").
Philosophical dualism is the theory that reality consists of two
irreducible elements or modes.  It does NOT mean "divided into parts",
"finite", "patterned", or two types of institutions, such as
science/math, religious/political, or reality and an ontology "that
points to it".  (And Ian, a part cannot contain the whole.)

Although the word first appeared in 1700 to denote the religious dualism
of good and evil, and more recently by Leibniz to distinguish the actual
from possible worlds, its philosophical use has followed the platonic
tradition of "mind and matter", culminating in the Cartesian theory of
"thought and substance" -- basically the S/O duality.

Obviously any two things, processes or events can be paired and
considered a duality.  But there is no duality in the experienced world
as sharply defined as subject and object.  This is the dualism of most
concern to philosophers.  I've tried to emphasize the significance of
this fundamental dualism by defining it as "Being-Aware", stressing the
fact that it is really a "dichotomy" because the contingencies are
mutually exclusive, contradictory, and yet co-dependent.

The reaction from this group is that I'm plugging "egotism",
resurrecting Descartes' Cogito, failing to grasp the Quality concept,
and even leaning towards Quantum probability.  Actually, all I'm in
effect saying is, "Look fella's...Existence isn't being that has
thoughts; it's knowing that there's being."  If you can discern the
difference, you might just begin to comprehend existence as the
experience of a subject rather than the evolution of an object.  That's
the Essence of Essentialism.  Is it the Quality of the MoQ??

Cheers,
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/