[MD] logic of Essentialism

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] logic of Essentialism


>
> Ron:
>
>> I thought the "loop hole" characterized your theory rather well,
>> through contradiction infinite possibility arises. Traditionally the
>> principle of explosion is used to destroy an argument but in the
>> use I propose, it creates one. It is rather unconventional but it
>> does describe your theory in classic terms.
>
> Your knack for reducing a metaphysical concept to a logical proposition is 
> fascinating.  I've been calling the ground of existence Difference, and 
> the power to negate Difference the potentiality of Essence.  But, except 
> for Cusa's first principle, I've never been able to formulate this in 
> strictly logical terms.
>
> I must say, however, that I'm now wary of logic.  For if there's a logic 
> to make anything reasonable or valid, what's the point of logical 
> analysis? If  by the "principle of explosion" anything is 
> possible--including the concurrent existence of A and Not A, why isn't 
> this a violation of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction?  And which law 
> takes precedence here? It would appear that one can support equivocation 
> simply by basing it on the right logic.  What am I missing here?
>
>> That's the beauty of the logic I propose, it describes this rather well
>> in terms of logical consistency. Most folks think analytically and when
>> they try to understand what you are saying they get confused by the
>> apparent contrariety in your statements.
>
> Who, then, thinks synthetically, and how do average folks know the 
> difference, even when stated by the author?  I tend to believe that most 
> intelligent people can recognize an illogical statement when they see it 
> without resorting to formal analysis.
> For example, I doubt that Pirsig actually reduced his theory to the 
> equation Quality = Experience = Reality.  Yet, that's the way his concept 
> has been interpreted, and we see this equation frequently in these posts. 
> Would you call that interpretation a "synthesis" or an "analysis"?
>
>> I think your best avenue is the assertion of synthetic argument
>> through the destruction of analytic initially then re-assert it as an
>> emergence of value awareness through the "complementarity"
>> dichotomy. Then when you state "But inasmuch as it is the
>> experience of this self that constructs the objectivized universe,"
>> you can then use this as an explaination for analytics too.
>> THEN when someone knocks you for circular contradictory
>> logic you can say "not so" I am making a synthetic argument
>> for analytical thought.
>
> Ron, if the truth be told, people typically reject an idea outright, 
> irrespective of logic, if it is associated with an ideology they despise. 
> They'll dismiss it on the ground that it is "theistic" or "right wing" or 
> "made up".  You see this gut reaction all the time.  "It doesn't smell 
> right", "he's hallucinating", "it's talk radio garbage".  I'm not an 
> analyst and may be naive, but I take the position that words and language 
> are secondary to the concept presented.  Only a  person who is receptive 
> to a new concept will be discerning enough to critique it analytically. 
> I'm trying to reach that kind of person, one who is willing to consider 
> the concept long enough to comprehend it.  If there are some flaws in my 
> logic, I can re-express the concept to correct or circumvent them. 
> However, I shall consider your advice and see how I can implement it in 
> the future.
>
> But, concerning Cusa's 'not-other', which you seem willing to discuss, 
> here's how Clyde Miller of Stony Brook U. formalized this theory as a 
> logical proposition:
>
> "For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than 
> not X.  What is unique about the divine not other is precisely that it is 
> not other than either X or not X ('cannot be other than'-'is not opposed 
> to anything').  The transcendent not-other thus undercuts both the 
> principles of non-contradiction and of the excluded middle."
>
> I wrote to the professor, but he never kept his promise to get back to me. 
> I think this theory has profound implications for metaphysical 
> development. Inasmuch as I've based my ontology on this principle, I'm 
> most interested in hearing your take on it.
>
> Many thanks,
> 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/