[MD] A problem with the MOQ.

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe


> Hi Ham and All,
>
> I don't trust your statement that there are two entities
> to be accounted for.
>
> A conception of evolution as inorganic, organic1 (replication
> by a single cell splitting itself), organic 2 (replication by the
> penetration of an egg cell by a sperm cell) etc., suggests a
> finite number of evolutionary levels to be accounted for,
> not just Essence and not-Essence.
>
> Existence, not-existence doesn't account for evolution.
> Levels in existence opens the metaphysical door to evolution.

This is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.  I'm 
talking about fundamentals, Joe.  You neglected the qualifying statement I 
made to Marsha:  "If you remove the complexity and details, you are left 
with a fundamental dichotomy -- the one Descartes formulated."

There is no need to account for categories intellectualized from the mode of 
experience when formulating a realioty concept.  Evolution is the "process 
of creation" as humans perceive it.  It is dependent on time and space which 
are  dimensions of experience.  A metaphysical ontology must apply to 
existence even in the absence of man.

When you reduce reality to its fundamental nature, I think you'll find that 
it is a dichotomy of Awareness and Otherness which identifies the Subjective 
and Objective contingencies of experience.  Breaking it down into physical, 
biological, social, and intellectual levels is an irrelevant afterthought 
that only complicates the basic ontology.

Best regards,
Ham