[MD] Ham's Value Rigidity?

[X Acto]

Ham:
"Faced with these descriptive limitations, Nicholas of Cusa [a.k.a. Cusanus, 1401-1464] developed a theory based on the "not-other" as a symbolic connotation for God. Cusanus argues that, although God is indefinable, it can be stated that the world is not God but is not anything other than God. In Nicholas’ own words: 'The first principle cannot be other either than an other or than nothing and likewise is not opposed to anything.'  God is 'not other', he asserts, because God is not other than any [particular] other, even though 'not-other' and 'other' [once derived] are opposed.  But no other can be opposed to God from whom it is derived.  The significance of Cusa's theory is profound. It has afforded philosophers a most valuable metaphysical tool—namely, a definition for the ineffable Source whose attributive nature is indefinable.

"Professor Clyde Miller of Stony Brook University's Philosophy Department has formalized Cusa's theory as a logical proposition: 'For any given non-divine X, X is not other than X, and X is other than not X. What is unique about
the divine not other is precisely that it is not other than either X or not X
('cannot be other than'—'is not opposed to anything'). The transcendent not-other thus undercuts both the principles of non-contradiction and of the excluded middle.' [9] The simple analogy of an ordinary drinking glass may help us understand the Cusan not-other. The inside of the glass is not its outside, and the outside is not its inside; yet, at the same time the glass is not other than either of its sides. Not-other is the coincidence of all otherness, including nothingness and contrariety."
 
Ron replies:
What we are ultimately speaking about is meaning. Lets not forget this.
And what gives any experience meaning is it's good. "Good" is a limit
placed on experience, it is a distinction made. The more accurate the
distinction the more meaning it has.
 
What "not-other" introduces is a logic trap, a classical one. Where meaing is concerned
"not-other" is meaninglessness and that which has no meaning has no value. In analytics
it serves as a placeholder, it serves as a logical "zero" a "nihl" function.
Professor Cyde Miller goes off track philosophically when he begins his reason
on a generality (one) to the particular (many) then argues back to the general (one)
then believes this is a more descriptive explanation of the general (one).
Then thinks he has an accurate metaphor for the divine.
Its an old rhetorical play on words.
 
.It fools one into believeing they understand the indefineable better rationally.
 
Intellectual masturbation if you would.
 
 
Cusa's glass is the subject matter of discussion, all else is a description including
other-not other, nothing-ness and contrarity.
.
 
..