[MD] Patterns

[Ham Priday]

Craig --


> "If anyone sees how it is that Not-other (which is the
> Other[ness] of the other) is not the other, then he sees
> the Other[ness] of the other-i.e., the Other[ness] of
> other things." (Cusanus)

First of all, that isn't Nicholas's quote; it's your attempt to extemporize 
on it to the point of absurdity.

> Ham,
> Is there a translation of Cusanus which is intelligible to English
> speakers?

Yes, there is.  Cusa himself defined his principle thusly: "The first 
principle cannot be other, either than an other or than nothing, and 
likewise is not opposed to anything."  In my book and on-line thesis I 
included Professor Clyde Miller's recent restatement of Cusa's 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."

Since I'm accused of failing to use the official vernacular, let me restate 
this proposition as Pirsig might have stated it,  DQ is not other than SQ, 
and SQ is not other than DQ.  What is unique about DQ is precisely that it 
is not other than either a pattern or a non-pattern, being or nothing, 
subject or object, positive or negative, or any other contrariety.  In other 
words, the 'not-other' is what transcends all otherness, yet is responsible 
for its appearance.

In short, Cusanus' first principle defines the coincidence of all 
difference.
I also point out that this theory has afforded philosophers a logical 
definition for the ineffable Source whose attributive nature is otherwise 
indescribable.  What astonishes me is that it has been virtually ignored for 
nearly 600 years.

Regards,
Ham