[MD] Chance

[Ham Priday]

[Ron]:

> First, the origin of difference seems to be composed of
> varying degrees of value and their interaction.
> So far science has yet to discover the basic particles of
> the fabric of substance. Every time they split a particle
> they find that it is a value composition of it's own in some
> way. From elementary particles to composite particles to
> the hypothetical fabric of space itself. The big question is
> not the origin of Difference but the origin of spin which
> creates difference in value arrangements. What
> is the origin of energy? ...

Whoa, fella'!  You're racing off far beyond the starting gate when you say 
difference is "composed of...".  There is no composition in oneness or 
nothingness.  You don't have elements, erergy, or particles prior to 
Difference.  My question about Difference may have been a bit presumptuous, 
as it was my devious way of sounding out what you consider the primary 
reality, which you allude to later.  In order for there to be difference --  
the proverbial "crack in the cosmic egg" -- there must first be an egg.  But 
you're already talking about physical existence as investigated by science.

For this to be a meaningful dialogue, it appears that we'll have to either 
agree or "agree not to agree" on certain fundamentals.  For this purpose, 
let me skip to what you call "the three classical paradoxes".  It gives me 
an opportunity to lay out my cosmogeny for your scrutiny.

[Ron]:
> Since we are here on the subject, I must ask if Essentialism
> solves all three of the classic logical paradoxes:
> 1. reconciling a doctrine of causation (similar to the 13th century
> proof of God posed by Thomas Aquinas);
> 2. reconciling the conservation law ("something from nothing");
> 3. reconciling issues of temporal (as in Zeno's paradoxes) and
> logical regression.

Yes, I believe it does, although you may not agree.

All three of these so-called paradoxes constitute what is known as the 
'Cosmological Argument'.  The cosmos is a differentiated system.  Hence, 
Difference is assumed in causation, ex nihilo nihil fit, and logical 
regression, and paradox is an intellectual precept derived from the very 
mode of human experience.  We are aware of reality as process in time and 
extension in space, and we intellectualize events by the principle of cause 
and effect.  This leads to two metaphysical fallacies: 1) that what appears 
in space/time is reality, and 2) that whatever happens is the effect of a 
first cause.  I say they are fallacies, because they're entirely based on 
the limited apprehension of the finite subject.  .

Why should the ultimate source (absolute reality) be the result or effect of 
something else?
Only because the subjective mind cannot conceive of an "uncreated" source. 
And here's where intuitive logic can extend empirical knowledge.  My 
cosmogeny is based on the absolute unity of an uncreated Essence which, on 
analysis, turns out to be the antithesis of Nothingness.

In the 15th century Cusanus posited his 'first principle' as the 
"coincidence of all contrariety, ...the not-other which is not opposed to 
any other."  He had defined the ineffable "uncreated source" as a logical 
proposition 600 years ago and, in my opinion, it has never been surpassed.

Difference is created (i.e., actualized) by the negation of nothingness, 
which produces a sensible nothingness (negate) whose objective experience is 
the value of its estranged Essence.  I refer to this division as the 
self/other dichotomy, and it accounts for the dualities of "before" and 
"after" in time, "here" and "there" in space, "beginning" and "ending" in 
process, "male" and "female" in gender, "good" and "bad" in morality, 
"truth" and "falsity" in knowledge, "beauty" and "grossness" in esthetics, 
and all the other contrarieties one encounters in existence.

Okay, the ball is now in your court, Ron.  Apart from reminding me that "I 
have no empirical proof" of this source, where does it contradict logic, 
Pirsig's cosmogeny (or lack thereof), and your own metaphysical views (i.e., 
"eternal energy", "fabric substance", etc.)?

Essentially yours,
Ham

-----------------------------------------------------
> Hypotheses vary about the origin point of energy but
> not energy itself which seems to have always been.
> Which then brings in your second question why does energy exist instead
> of
> Nothing at all? To which I reply with quotes from continental
> philosophers
> About how the very question is merely a fabricated abstract logical
> Construct projected into experience. If you read those Quotes.
>
> [Ron]:
>> Pirsig's method of the intellectual construct of referring to these
>> patterns of experience as Dynamic and Static suffice to demonstrate
>> his theory.  Plainly, some patterns are denser than others, to use an
>> analogy, it works (to my conceptual understanding) a lot like a
>> thermodynamic system. " No value" does not exist.  That is why I say
>> quite literally, we are Quality.
> Ham:
> Okay, value is ubiquitous and all-pervading.  I agree, but only when it
> is
> removed or reduced from Essence, as in the self/other dichotomy.  From a
>
> logical perspective, positing the self as "value" makes more sense than
> positing it as as a "negate" or nothingnness', which I have done.
>
> I'm don't know if not Bo Slutvik realized the significance of his
> statement
> "Intellect is the value of the DQ/SQ divide", but if you simply
> substitute
> Experience for Intellect in the statement, you'll  have my definition of
>
> experiential awareness.  That is to say, if the cognizant individual is
> value-sensibility, his experience is derived from his sensation of Value
>
> which, in turn, is intellectualized into the multiplicity of things
> (patterns) that represent this value.  (In my ontology nothingness is
> what
> divides the phenomena experienced, and it is inherent in the negate
> rather
> than value or Essence.)  That's why I call the individual an agent of
> value,
> and his experience of the world a "valuistic construct".
>
> I don't follow your mention of the thermodynamic system as an anology.
> To
> what phase or mode of value is this meant to apply?  Maybe you can
> elaborate
> on that.
>
> This discussion will be more enlightening to me when I receive an
> epistemological scenario from you similar to the one I've just outlined.
>
> Thanks, Ron.
>
> Ron:
> I thought we were going to throw classical logic out for the
> Time being. Explaining it in an epistemological scenario leaves
> It incomplete remember ?  what the problem seems to be is that you
> Seem to focus on that particular branch of metaphysics known as
> Cosmogony and conflagulate it with the entirety of metaphysics itself.
> The very questions of Cosmogony are misleading by mine and I believe
> Pirsigs views too since it contains erroneous assumptions of beginnings,
> endings and the nature of existence itself .
> Since we are here on the subject, I must ask if Essentialism
> Solves all three of the classic logical paradoxes:
>
> 1.reconciling a doctrine of causation (similar to the 13th century proof
> of God posed by Thomas Aquinas);
> 2. reconciling the conservation law ("something from nothing");
> 3. reconciling issues of temporal (as in Zeno's paradoxes) and logical
> regression.
>
> I think you have started to address some of these paradoxes but I'm not
> Sold on the completeness of your explanations of 1 and 2.
> But my point is that thses are paradoxes of logic, not
> Paradoxes of experience. That's why Pirsig really does'nt
> Even address cosmogony. Which is your real beef with him.
>
> Sorry bout the misfire of my incomplete post.
>
> -Ron