[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --


> G. Spencer Brown in an attempt to build a mathematics out of
> shear logic maintained that to get a mathematics, any mathematic,
> the first step is to "draw a distinction" that is, to establish
> a relationship.

BINGO!  Your mathematician has defined the ontological principle of 
relation.  Experiential existence IS relation -- ALL relation.  Being is 
divided, events are divided, awareness is divided.  And they all relate to 
each other.

> I suspect the first distinction might be between something and nothing
> or between 0 and 1. This was a distinction so metaphysically abhorrent
> to the Greeks that they intentionally rejected it. They refused to
> acknowledge or use O. It wasn't until nearly a thousand years later
> that the number 0 was available to the west.

The first distinction (i.e., difference) is between absolute Oneness (your 
"something") and absolute nothingness.  Although Oneness (Essence) is 
'prime', numerality or its intellectual realization requires a cognizant 
subject.  The zero refused by the Greeks figures in the logic of mathematics 
which is a relational system.  That is, it connotes the absence of a 
numbered quantity.  Primary nothingness establishes difference but relates 
only to absolute Essence.  Difference must be broken down into relational 
existents by value-sensibility in order to actualize existence.

> But in no sense is nothing an "agent." Nor does it make any sense
> to speak of sensibility as metaphysical. Sensibility is property of living
> things. It is a system of feedback. It is a property of relationship not
> relationship itself.

This is awkward, and I may not be choosing the proper terms, but the 
sensibility I refer to is not a biological response mechanism, such as what 
causes an amoeba to shrink from a toxic substance.  Rather, it is "pure" 
value-sensibility which doesn't exist in the differentiated world, yet is 
necessary for proprietary awareness.  That's why I classify sensibility as 
"metaphysical" -- to distinguish it from "existential".  Once individuated 
(embodied) as a conscious organism, primary value-sensibility becomes the 
psycho-emotional 'being-aware'.  Conscious awareness is not an existent or 
"entity"; it is the value agent that creates the appearance of relational 
existence.  In that sense it is the 'negate' otherwise known as the 
cognizant Self of experiential reality.

I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but your mathematical premise 
is a useful analogy for the primary metaphysical dichotomy.

Thanks, Krimel.

Ham