[MD] The other side of Value

[118]

HI Ham, Ron,


On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Ron --
>
>
> On Fri, June 03, 2011 at 9:57 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ham said:
>>
>> "Limit" is exactly what I'm talking about, Ron. Nothingness is what
>> limits experience to Value, and what differentiates essential value into
>> the relative entities experienced. Moreover, nothingness (by definition)
>> is not an entity, so your suggestion that I'm "pulling a sleight of hand"
>> trick by inserting "a second entity" into the equation is ill-founded.
>
> Ron asked:
>>
>> Again if Essense is absolute, where can nothingness reside anywhere?
>>
>> Essence must necessarily be a dualism per the explanation you use to
>> account for value.
>
> Number and Difference are the existential equivalents of Essence divided by
> nothingness.  They define finitude as we experience it.  Things and events
> cannot be experienced without the nothingness that divides sensibility from
> its otherness.  Accordingly, I regard existence (the pluralistic world of
> appearances) as derived from the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy which is
> primary to differentiated experience.
>
> Now, the question you ask is a logical one: Where is the nothingness that
> divides?  This is a paradox for absolutists like myself, and my answer will
> not fit your standard logical syllogism.  We are dealing here with that
> which does NOT exist -- specifically, 'not-Essence' -- and treating it like
> an existent.  Nothingness is a "simulated other" created by the denial
> (negation) of Essence.  This is not an "act" on the part of Essence, but a
> modality of the negational source.  (You might compare it with the trail
> left by a comet or the solar flare radiated by the sun.)   The only way it
> can exist is as a limitation of conscious sensibility.  Like the gap that
> separates two halves of a mountain range, nothingness is effective by its
> absence.  Although the negation of nothingnmess does not produce a dualism,
> its net effect is to provide the appearance of otherness.

[Mark]
Nothingness is that which divides.  Where is that which divides good
and evil?  Can you point to it?  Does it exist?  This is where Ron has
difficulty.  He is trying to create a dualist world with divisions.
However, he cannot himself point to that which divides.  If the
divider does not exist, we are left with a monist world, not matter
how many opposites we can imagine.
>
> And while you may still consider my explanation "word trickery", I've
> devoted a lot of thought to this concept, and to date it is the best
> solution I can come up with.  If you have the analytical skill to express
> this as a logical premise, I'll be eternally grateful.

[Mark]
Any logic is " word trickery", and Ron should know this.  The sophists
based their expression on word trickery.  Lawyers sound awfully
logical unless you are on the other side, then one must beware of
trickery.  If Ron can explain in terms of a logical premise, such
explanation is immediately suspect since it relies on assuming a
starting assumption to be Truth.  What is it that makes such an
assumption the true Ground to build on?  Everything built from it
stands as if on quicksand.
>
> Ron:
>>
>> That absolute source being "the good "as primary reality, whatever exists
>> indeed is a reduction, perceptually, of "the good".  Perception is the
>> limit
>> and to limit is to carve meaning from experience. To make that which is
>> unintelligible, intelligible is clearly the greatest good.  It accounts
>> for beauty
>> in experience and why it is better to be wise than not.

[Mark]
To "make intelligible" is not necessarily good.  It can also be used
for coercion and extreme evil.  There are many ways to create the
intelligible.  The stars in the heavens can be made into
constellations, which can be considered intelligible, but they detract
from the beauty of the sky by omitting most of it.  Once we claim to
be working to make good, we are to be feared.  Most beauty is not made
intelligible.  A sonnet is made up mostly of unintelligible beauty.
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>