[MD] The first cut.

[118]

Hi Again, Ham,

On 1/26/12, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi again, Mark --
>
> [Ham, previously];
>>> Mark, I really see little difference between a "structured"
>>> and a "mechanistic" approach to metaphysics. . . .
>
>> The difference is as follows:  In MoQ we have two handles that
>> we create to present MoQ, DQ and sq.  In a way, this is no
>> different from the material spiritual divide (othes may gape aghast
>> at this), but it is more intuitive.  As Essentialism claims, the Self
>> is a body which stands alone.  Thus this is your cut.  The process
>> you refer to, is a divisiveness of cutting, not the cut results  itself.
>>
>> Every Ontology is different, in your case you start with an
>> undifferentiated source which is negated.  In MoQ, I start with
>> the negation as primary (please note that I say "I", I am not the
>> new interpreter for Pirsig :0). . . .
>
> I know (because Joe told me) that Essence is non-logical; but even so,
> negation without something to negate it from is a logical absurdity.  Thus,
> negation can be "primary" only to process and relations.  I trust we
> understand each other on that ontological premise.  As a minor point, I
> would not define the self as a "body", since even the body with which the
> self identifies is a physical object (i.e., "otherness").

I agree Ham, negation requires something to negate in the same way
that DQ needs sq to exist.  It is process and relations that we are
speaking of when we talk about existence.  That is, existence cannot
exist without them.  I will agree with you one the subject of Self,
and it really does not matter in this case where the demarkation
exists.  Your Self cannot exist without a body, since it is the body
which defines it.  Otherwise it would be like a window without a
frame, and we know that such a thing is nonsense.
>
>> My upcoming post to you titled "MoQ for the Essentialist" may
>> explain this better than I have in the many posts of the past
>> (of course that is also my opinion).  You state that the Source is
>> undefined, as it should be.  However, I would define the way you
>> present the Source as "the potential for all that arises".
>> Perhaps you can correct me here.
>
> I would have preferred "Essentialism for the MoQer" as a title, but  beggars
> can't by choosers, and I'm definitely begging the Essence question in this
> forum.

Well that is your job if you want converts in this forum.  The trick
is not to say it is one or the other, but to combine the two in a
reasonable fashion.  It is a win-win endeavor.
>
> Although Essence itself is undefinable, we can attribute "potentiality" to
> it without violating logic.  Yes, Essence is the source of all potency or
> power.  As I state in my online thesis: "Nothingness is the cosmic
> differentiator that reduces potentiality to actuality.  Whatever has the
> potential to exist is not actualized by its own power, but rather by the
> 'not-other' whose negation makes the potential to exist necessary."

Yes, I have read your thesis.  The way you seemed to use the concept
of nothingness was as "something which actuates" (my quotes).  In this
way, your nothingness must be an active participant.  For it not to
be, it must come from a place other than Essence, and sit passively
by.  Nothingness is a noun which signifies something, right?.  As
before, I am trying to explore your concept of negation in terms of
MoQ.  This negation is a process which produces awareness.  This
process must come from someplace in order to negate Essence.  I have
no problem with Essence negating itself, but we still have to separate
the negation from the appearance of Self and Other, I believe.  If
not, perhaps you can give me an analogy.

>>>
>> I understand what you mean by Essence.  I do understand that Essence
>> is revealed through a process which you term negation.  I do
>> understand that it is the process of such that is termed existence.
>> What I am putting as primary is your process of objectification
>> itself.  It is this process which creates self and other (as you will
>> see).  If you want to call this nothingness it is fine with me, but it
>> must be an active verb, right?  It must be a process not an object,
>> right?
>
> Not an "object"?, yes.  A "process"?, no.  Nothingness is neither a thing
> nor an action.  Empirically it is empty space.  Metaphysically there is no
> "process" except as perceived in the space/time mode of experience.  Only in
> experience does creation appear as an evolving relational order.
> Nothingness is the differentiating ground of finite being (the "essent"
> perceived), not an ontological process.  Otherwise your understanding is
> right on target.  (Or should I say "on the Mark" ;-).

Well, this may be a small point, but for empty space to exist, objects
must exist.  We compare objects to empty space.  Therefore, empty
space is as real an object as the objects being revealed.  Emptiness
can not exist alone, it would have no logical meaning.

Yes, experience creates time and space.  This experience creates both
objects and nothingness at the same time.  With one must come the
other.  There is no way around this, for nothingness cannot exist on
its own.  It would not be called nothingness since this term is only
in relation to there being something.  Once experience is present,
temporal order and all that proceed.  By the way, all this is playing
nicely into my ontology which is to be delivered this weekend once I
have condensed it into little tiny pieces.

When I speak of process, I am referring to negation itself.  That is,
we go through the world discerning value through negation (or double
negation if you wish).  This makes negation something that happens,
right?  This negation gives birth to time and space, right?  In fact
it could be a shorthand for saying "creating the appearance of time
and space as we know it".  Therefore, by my reasoning it is a process.
 But, I don't want to get into the semantic battle here.
>
>> The indefinability of DQ would be akin to your indefinability of
>> Essence.  It simply means that DQ cannot be revealed through
>> definition.  In fact, definition only hides it more.  However, this
>> does not mean that we cannot discuss it relationally which is what we
>> do by juxtaposing it with sq.  However, if we define DQ as everything
>> that is not sq, all we are doing is creating another sq which is not
>> DQ.  Comprende?
>
> Si signor.  As long as "sq" and its patterns are treated as "existence" and
> its relations, I have no problem with this paradigm.  I'll be most
> interested in how you explain the dynamics of Value (Quality), as you appear
> to have avoided it so far in our discussions.

Both DQ and sq are treated as "existence" they cannot exist separately
otherwise we would only have half-Quality (imo, and I am not a
spokesperson).  The dynamics of Value are the same as explaining your
process of negation.  I have not got a clear presentation from you
either on what this is exactly, but it sounds like a power to act on
Essence making it separate from Essence.  Perhaps my presentation will
help you, as you help me.
>
> When may I expect to receive this epistle, Mark?  It's been a mighty long
> time coming!

Heh, Heh.  How long did it take you to write up your thesis?  I am
kind of stuck in the Thistle of the Epistle.  I want it to be
understandable to you.  This weekend, come hell or high water.  Thanks
for the insistence, I work best under pressure.  I have to do it from
home since I do not have the time here at work.  My days are pretty
long right now during the week, 7 am to 7 pm, and then I have my
family.  yeah, I know excuses excuses  :-).  These short posts are
much easier to deal with without much thought (if you didn't notice).
>
Under the gun,
Mark
>
> 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
>