[MD] Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

On 1/13/10 at 10:39 PM, Mary wrote:

> Greetings to all in this thread,
>

[Quoting Ham]:
> I maintain that no philosophy that identifies the Primary Source
> as a relational attribute, such as Goodness, Beauty, Love,
> Energy, Being, Mind, or Value, can be considered to transcend
> existence.  Such hypotheses are not metaphysics but poetic
> euphemisms for the differentiated world of experience.  A true
> metaphysics, in my opinion, is a cogent concept that explains
> the origin and purpose of existence as it relates to ultimate
> Reality.
>
> If you require a primary source or an ultimate reality, then the
> MoQ is not for you.  That's not what it's about.  Thinking in terms
> of absolutes and ultimate causes is the basis for every Western
> religion, the entire value set of the Social Level, and the answer
> every time we ask, "Whose fault was that?".  Primary sources and
> ultimate realities are SOM staples.  SOM cannot exist without
> "origins", "primaries", and "ultimates".  If your world consists of
> subjects and objects, me and you, us and them, or in here and
> out there, then everything _has_ to be reducible to a primary source
> (which, by the way, will never be me ;) ).

I said nothing about "worshiping", Mary, so please don't put me in the 
religious category.  The fundamental axiom of metaphysics is 'ex nihilo 
nihil fit' -- nothing comes from nothingness.  Not even the Big Bang emerged 
from nothing.  Everything has a cause except the uncreated Source.  This 
concept is not "an SOM staple".  We all "require a primary source" just to 
exist.  Now, you can disregard this axiom in your belief system, in which 
case your philosophy is not metaphysical.  As I pointed out before, 
metaphysics transcends the world of differentiated experience.  Ultimate 
reality is, indeed, more than relational subjects and objects that appear, 
evolve, and cease to exist.  That reality is what metaphysics attempts to 
conceptualize.

> The MoQ says (if you want to put it in these kind of terms) that the
> "ultimate reality" is not fixed in space or time, has no predefined goal
> in mind, and cannot even definitively say _in advance_ that any one
> thing is "better" than any other.  There is no "ultimate reality" that is
> always and forever True.  Quality makes it up as it goes along (or
> discovers it, or acknowledges it, or notices it).  It is all relative,
> depends on your point of view, and what level your point of view
> arises from.  That's the beauty of it.  Things achieve the status of a
> static latch in a level because they are _valued_ by that level.
> They may be the best thing since sliced bread for that level, but the
> worst thing ever for all the others - meanwhile,  _all_ the levels
> coexist within us and are all operating simultaneously. How cool is that?
> Personally, I prefer it to worshiping an ultimate reality.

I agree with your opening statement: "'ultimate reality' is not fixed in 
space or time, has no predefined goal in mind, and cannot even definitively 
say _in advance_ that any one thing is 'better' than any other.  The 
remainder of this paragraph strikes me as either unfounded or contradictory. 
You say "there is no 'ultimate reality' that is always and forever True." 
How do you know this?  Is it because Pirsig hasn't posited it?   Quality is 
a relative esthetic judgment.  How does Quality "make it up as it goes 
along" without an experiencing agent?  (Need I remind you that Mr. Pirsig 
also said: "Experience is the cutting edge of reality"?)

My point of view is not attached to a "level"; it arises from my intuition 
and logic. It informs me that there is no need to "worship a deity" because 
what we instinctively desire and seek in existence is the value of our 
uncreated Source.  The things and events we experience represent this value 
in an infinite range of forms, relations, qualities, flavors, colors, and 
textures.  From this experience we freely judge their value and morality to 
us and direct our lives accordingly.  Without experience there is no 
existence.  There is only the potentiality for existence.  Our existential 
"essence" may be value-sensibility, but neither we nor our experience can be 
equated with Absolute Reality.

But thanks for this analysis of your philosophy, Mary.

Essentially yours,
Ham