[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy

[Ham Priday]

Michael --


> MP: Infinitesimal. "Yeah, yeah, that's it! That's the word!" ;-)
>
> Although I think "infinite" worked well too. It is a point,
> with no dimension. It is infinitesimal in that regard. In that sense,
> though I find it unclear how you can not call that "nothing"
> as you used the term above. If it has no dimension, being
> smaller than anything, including itself, how can it be "thing"?

For a term that approximates nothing at all, "nothingness" holds continuing 
interest for me.  What you are describing -- a dimensionless point -- also 
intrigued the French philosopher Pascal, who in his "Pensees" introduced the 
notion of "infinitesimilitude" as the hypothetical basis for a single-point 
universe.  I quote this in my website thesis as follows:

"Do you believe it to be impossible that God is infinite, without parts? 
Yes.  I wish therefore to show you an infinite and indivisible thing.  It is 
a point moving everywhere with an infinite velocity; for it is one in all 
places and is all totality in every place."

Only, in Pascal's example, it is the infinitesimal point's "motion" at 
infinite velocity which describes the universe.  It seems to me, however, 
that a virtual nothingness moving at infinite speed is more suitable for a 
sci-fi classic than a metaphysical ontology.  For if the resulting 
"holographic" image is indeed the experienced universe in its perceived 
arrangement, why do we need a fleeting point to paint it?  Isn't it more 
plausible that the order of this system reflects the relationship of the 
Creator to the subject who perceives it?   In other words, might not the 
design or pattern of the universe be a cosmic principle embedded in 
value-sensibility itself which the intellect then objectivizes as "being"? 
Since I define the cognitive subject as "value-sensibility", and 
experiential reality as  "actualized value", this concept is a basic premise 
of Essentialism.

> It also however contains all the known universe, which we at this
> point consider to be infinite. That point is also then infinite in our
> understanding of "things." Yet it is infinitesimal; so small that it 
> "isn't."
> Its a self contradictory paradox. We can't really fully conceive it,
> yet we can conceive it enough to recognize it is in someway real.
> Clearly, we don't understand "things" well enough to pronounce
> that something cannot come from nothing when we are willing to
> suggest infinity can be contained within infinitesimality and be ok with 
> it.
>
> Your contention that "nothing" divides or separates entities presumes
> a definition of entity to be a certain way, it presumes a certain
> understanding of "thing."  I could just as easily argue splitting
> something in two and separating it with nothing creates something
> from nothing, no? I put the nothing into something and it became
> two things....

In fact, I make this very argument in the Differentiation section of my 
website, which I suggest that you read at 
http://www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reflect.

"To divide a circle in half, one describes a line through the axis 
connecting the periphery.  Geometrically, of course, the diameter has no 
dimension - it is a nothingness.  Yet its "presence" creates something new 
and different: a pair of semicircles.  This delimiting or differentiating 
process applies to all experienced phenomena.  Every object and event in 
nature is separated from every other by the nothingness between them.  Since 
everything that has "being" is differentiated by nothingness, and being is 
what we call "reality", without nothingness our reality could not exist."

> So while that is an extremely childish and simplistic "refutation"
> of the "can't get something from nothing" claim, it works just fine
> in its own limited system of understanding. Now, presume for a
> moment that the greatest human understanding is equally simplistic
> to a far greater understanding.
>
> Getting my drift?

I certainly do, and you have proven yourself a theorist after my heart ;-).

> What if "all" just "is" and the "things" we can perceive to "be" or
> to "not be" (as in "nothing") aren't an accurate understanding of this
> "is" at all?  What if they are just crude approximations of what's
> going on?  If they are, we really can't rely on "thing" to be that
> which we use to explain reality unless we are willing to accept
> that "thing" is only a crude tool we use to pretend we can
> approximate an understanding of that which leads us to use the
> word to describe it in the first place.
>
> Perception is reality, and if reality is infinite, our perception of it
> can never be more than infinitesimal. And that has some truly
> unfortunate implications for our existence. ;-)

Well stated, Michael.  I couldn't put it better myself.  However, I would 
amend your final thought that the limitations of perception are 
"unfortunate".  It's my conviction that the inaccessibility of absolute 
knowledge is necessary for the 'value agent' to exercise free choice.  For 
if we possessed such wisdom, freedom would be impossible and life's journey 
would be meaningless.  Besides, people like Platt with high 
value-sensibility would no longer be awed by the beauty of a mountain 
sunset.

You are thinking a lot like me, which is a rare pleasure -- especially 
considering that such thoughts are being expressed on the MoQ forum.

I'm even beginning to entertain hope that you may become my first known 
"convert"!

Essentially yours,
Ham