[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Ham Priday]

Hi Joe --


On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 3:10 PM, "Joseph Maurer" <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [MD] Taking Words Seriously


> Hi Ham and All,
>
> An image that has interested me lately is a deaf mute that sits
> in the front pew in Church while someone signs the ongoing
> events and words.  Can I broaden my understanding by the
> use of gestures only and not words?  Do words written on a
> computer qualify as gestures since I am deaf to your voice?
>
> Imho The logical communication of the dynamics of the
> differentiation in individuality can be addressed by levels in
> existence, evolution.  I am happy to discuss your hypothesis
> if you feel indefinable individuality can be conceptualized as
> a rock and a hard place outside of evolution.

How about 'All or Nothing' as a paradigm for existential reality?  For, 
indeed, this is what the world of experience comprises.  We are concerned 
with the 'All' of this paradigm; but it is 'Nothingness' which shapes and 
differentiates its being.  Likewise, 'Nothingness' individuates Sensibility, 
which is the essential derivative by which the Self beomes the free agent of 
existence.

The fundamental ontology of Essentialism is that Essence-not being-is the 
ultimate reality and the primary, Absolute Source of diversity.  For 
diversity (contrariety and difference) to arise from absolute Oneness, there 
must be a "differentiator" within the absolute potentiality of Essence.  But 
since essentialists define Essence as perfect "Is-ness" (Eckhart's term for 
the All that IS), there is but one attribute within the absolute 
potentiality of Essence that qualifies as a differentiator-Nothingness, the 
antithesis of Is-ness.

Essence denies that it is nothingness, and so does not possess it, even 
though nothingness is actualized to create a differentiated universe in 
which value-sensibility is a cognizant agent.  Nothingness is the "not" of 
negation that divides one thing from another in the objective world, and one 
perspective from another in subjective experience.   In other words, 
creation is the negation of an "uncreated" Source that knows no otherness. 
Everything that exists is "excluded" from this negational Source that I call 
Essence.  And what can't be defined as finite 'existents'-Potentiality, 
Sensibility, and Value-are the 'essential' attributes of Absolute Oneness.

> My feel for logic has dwindled with age, and I apologize in advance for
> illogical statements.

Despite your modesty, I know you are a logician, Joe.  So, although I don't 
believe logic can be extended beyond a relational system, I'm giving you an 
opportunity to criticize the logic of this ontology before we engage in 
further discussion.

Yours in the pursuit of understanding,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

> On 10/14/11 9:42 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Since you seem to be hung up on the dynamics of differentiation, I would
>> like to guide you through my hypothesis, if this interests you.  I should
>> warn you in advance, however, that my theory does not rely on "levels of
>> evolution" which is a sequence of events in time that is dependent on the
>> mode of human experience.  But if you are not wedded to Pirsig's 
>> hierarchy
>> and are willing to consider an alternative, a dialogue on this important
>> topic may prove instructive for both of us.
>>
>> Thanks, Joe.  I shall await your decision.