[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Joe,
Personally I find Essentialism to be logical in its use of an
uncreated source.  You can check out the web site for more
information.

Yes, we can use the modifiers of active, passive or neutral, but that
is not the sum total of any ontology.  There are also no real rules as
to the presentation.  If there were, we could not provide a dynamic
interpreation of existence.  Therefore, I would caution against trying
to compartmentalize "existence" into static critera of your choice.
If the right rhetoric is used, any form of presentation is adequate.

Just my opinion, of course.

mark

On 1/25/12, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Ham and all,
>
> You use a word "essence" which is not logical.  No logic or reality can
> follow "essence".  It is a stand alone word defining to be (esse) and being
> (ens) different parts of speech yes/no and the beat goes on!.
>
> In a DQ/SQ format for metaphysics you need a word which looks three ways
> "existence": EX (out of) Iste (that) ens (being) so that the description of
> an origin for reality accepts modifiers:  active, passive, or neutral.
>
> Once those three elements are embodied in metaphysics like "existence", then
> a metaphysical discussion can define reality more precisely, and logic is
> served.  Evolution, embodying each of the forces, cannot manifest only as
> active or passive "essence"!
>
> Joe
>
>
> On 1/24/12 10:55 PM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The capacity to define is what I call Sensibility; and because it embraces
>> empirical, emotional, and intellectual values, I refer to it as
>> "value-sensibility" and consider it the essence of man's selfness.  So
>> that,
>> instead of describing Value (i.e., DQ) as something indefinable that we
>> "latch onto" as "patterns and levels", I explain experience as the
>> objectivization of Value by the sensible "agent" or self.
>>
>> Thus, if Selfness=Individuated Sensibility, the objects of experience
>> (finitude) represent "otherness", or what the sensible agent is _not_.
>> This
>> idea has its parallel in Cusa's theorem that the First Principle (i.e.,
>> God)
>> is Not-Other.  It offers an epistemology that simplifies conscious
>> awareness
>> by avoiding the analytical problems that invariably arise when we try to
>> express subjects and objects as a metaphysical construct of
>> undifferentiated
>> Quality.
>>
>> I hope this analysis shares some of your thinking, or at least points in a
>> similar direction, Joe.  If so, perhaps we can once again have a
>> productive
>> dialogue.
>
>
> 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
>