[MD] MOQ and SOM

[Ham Priday]

Hi John --



[Ham, previously]:
> Here's my solution to your "fault line" error.  (I suppose John
> will call this "picking and defining my game.")

[John]:
> Yes, but play that is known as play is perfectly valid, and
> besides Ham, you didn't pick this game, Joe did.  However,
> picking math as the game comes with some problems - chief
> being perfectly illustrated by something Ron said in a different thread:
>
> "The desire for certainty in meaning blinds one to the value of meaning
> in the concept of certainty".

There is no certainly in metaphysics, but there is plenty of meaning if one 
is willing to conceptualize it.  Man is not born into a world of certainty, 
which is why his essence is value rather than truth.  As an observer of 
nature (beingness) whose awareness is independent of it, he is free to 
choose his values.  What is Truth for man is what has meaning to him, and 
meaning is derived from his values rather than logic or numbers.

> ...You will have to spend time and effort when using words
> and you lose control of your word's meaning the instant it leaves
> your brain and enters the brain of your intended.  It can be
> frustrating, maddening, seemingly hopeless at times.
>
> But oh so worth the effort when it works.

[In deference to the "numbers man", Ham tries to make metaphysical sense 
from a mathematical equation]:
> Mathematical values are valid only within the scope of finite dimensions.
> Therefore, in existential logic, one divided by nothing remains a unity
> because no division is consummated.  However, in metaphysical logic,
> unity represents an absolute source and zero represents "nothingness",
> a negation of that unity. This negation is existence -- a relational world
> of infinitely differentiated phenomena.

[John]:
> Cool.  This negation represents existence -  I totally get that.  Divide 
> by
> a metaphysical zero and you reach infinity.  One totally great thing about
> playing differing logical games is you get to see hard concepts from
> differing perspectives.  I'll grant you that is a big help.  Sometimes.
> Personally, my first instinct is NOT to think mathematically, but hey,
> that's just me.
>
> I liked a quote I read somewhere that the American Indian didn't think
> about animals, the American Indian thought IN animals.  The animals
> were the conceptual framework for their perceived reality.  I'd rather
> think in animal than math, but having both at hand for comparison
> purposes is best of all.

The Indians also had a saying that you don't know a man until you walk in 
his shoes.  Putting yourself in the other's place is the best way to score 
points in an argument, and it would spare us much acrimony on this forum.

[John quoting Needleman]:
> "There is a kind of wonder which accompanies the perception
> of a difference of levels in the universe and in ourselves.  But it
> seems we then all too easily dream of striding beyond this
> difference of levels, rather than seeking to allow the higher level
> to enter our minds as a kind of guide to our unknown selves.
> That is why it seems to me that men need the discipline of a path,
> and the ideas which it brings in ways that interfere with the
> egoistic cerebral automatism."

Perhaps.  But you have not answered my question: Why do we need levels?  We 
live in a world of difference.  Difference is all around us as we seek 
unity.  How does arbitrarily dividing what is already differentiated into 
incremental levels help us realize this unity?  It seems to this observer 
that the only difference we need to recognize is the separation of that 
which "knows" from that which IS -- in other words, Sensibility from Being. 
This primary division of sensible awareness  from absolute Is-ness (Essence) 
is for me the beginning of Difference

I also asked, in what way did Aristotle or Descartes get it wrong by 
positing existence as a subject/object dualism?

> Starting with his cogito ergo sum, Descartes first identified self with
> associations of thought.  He then separated this "self" off from
> surrounding nature, including the body.  And the body he then
> understood to be devoid of consciousness, purpose and the inherent
> power of life.  The implications of this separation are realized when
> we face nature as explainers and conquerors, thus causing a biological
> disruption which threatens man's future existence.

The first part of what you wrote explains the Cogito.  But I don't recall 
Descartes saying anything about a threat to man's future.  Are you 
editorializing again, John?  How can humans adapt nature to his needs 
without exploring its dynamics and physical principles and applying them to 
his society?  Isn't this the method by which mankind achieves material 
progress?  Why should this be a threat to humanity?

Essentially yours,
Ham