[MD] Tit's

[MarshaV]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's


>
> Krimel --
>
> While I await your theory of "energy transduction" as it applies to 
> Quality and/or Value, I'll try to mediate your "vigorous disagreement that 
> we have a 'sense of Essence, the uncreated non-existent source of 
> existence'."   Since neither of us can offer "proof" of our respective 
> ontologies, I don't expect to change your view, but will offer a plausible 
> argument for my reasoning that may make more sense to you.
>
>> What reason can you give for suspecting the existence
>> of an uncreated Absolute unchanging source or whatever
>> it is you are evasively calling God?
>
> I start with the premise that nothing comes from  nothing, 'ex nihilo 
> nihil fit', which is attributed to Parmenides and is the basis for the 
> theory of first cause.  Since experience tells us that everything in 
> existence had a beginning, including the experiencing subject, we have no 
> reason to assume that physical reality, or the energy of which it is 
> composed, has always existed.  Cognizant beings and things do not create 
> themselvces.  Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the appearance 
> of finitude (what we call "existence") is the result of creation.  If man 
> and his universe are created, then it is also reasonable to assume a 
> Creator.

Greetings Ham,

Does 'experience' tell us anything other than its value is good, bad, or 
neutral?  Even the idea that an experience has a beginning, a middle and an 
end is a part of the 'designs by us' process, a process where experiences 
get reified and define into recognizable patterns.

Marsha







>
> Now, because it is unfashionable in our "enlightened" age to acknowledge 
> the possibility of a creator, postmodernists have bent over backwards to 
> come up with theories from the Big Bang to "parallel universes" in order 
> to discredit or mythologize this notion.  Pirsig has attained some success 
> in establishing DQ as the source of reality, but his aversion to theism 
> and his avoidance of metaphysical definitions have not helped his cause.
>
> By contrast, the essentialist view of Creation is based on a primary 
> source that is absolute and immutable, which means it has no boundaries or 
> divisions and is not subject to the conditions of space/time causality. 
> Essence is not an 'existent", so technically it doesn't "exist", in the 
> same sense that "nothingness" doesn't exist.  However, Essence is the 
> antithesis of nothingness.  My ontology is supported by Cusan logic.  The 
> 15th century neoplatonist logician and astronomer Cusanus argued that, 
> although God is indefinable, it can be stated that the world is not God 
> but is not anything _other_ than God.  God is 'not other', he said, 
> because God is not other than any (particular) other, even though 
> 'not-other' and 'other' (once derived) are opposed.  But no other can be 
> opposed to God from whom it is derived.  The Cusan 'First Principle' --  
> not-other is the coincidence of all contrariety -- rules out Divine Being, 
> anthropomorphic deities, or any external entity as a causitive ource or 
> creator.
>
> In fact, Cusanus left us with a workable definition for the ineffable 
> Source whose attributive nature is otherwise indefinable.  Possibility and 
> actuality, he said, are co-dependent in existence but coincide in the 
> non-contradictory Source-ultimate reality in which opposites like 
> 'positive and negative', 'subject and object', and 'being and nothing' are 
> not mutually exclusive but equivalent.  In the Oneness of Essence, all 
> difference is eliminated.  There is no "other" for Essence because Essence 
> itself is not other.  Moreover, because the ultimate source transcends 
> both differentiation in space and change in time, it IS absolutely.  That 
> is to say, Essence is primary,  absolute and uncreated, whereas any 
> created thing (essent) is reductively derived as a "secondary" 
> manifestation of Essence.
>
> I have outlined a hypothesis for creation in my website which you probably 
> won't read.  But insofar as you question my reasons "for suspecting an 
> absolute source"', this is the best I can do in this limited space. 
> Meantime, I look forward to learning more about your energy-transducing 
> ontogeny (epistemology?) when you have the time.
>
> Regards,
> 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/