[MD] Metaphysics

[John Carl]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:

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.


Well existentially speaking Ham, I don't know what nothing is.  I've never
seen it, I've never smelled it, I've never experienced it.  And since it
depends conceptually upon "something" it logically can't exist as a discrete
concept.  So... what the heck are you talking about here?

Nothing?

Then pragmaticially speaking,  why bother?




>  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.



Speak for yourself there big boy.  I refute your assertion, still I persist
in  existence.  Therefore, I don't need your assertion or your primary
source and you haven't provided me any pragmatic reason for accepting it.




> 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.


Metaphysics *describes* the world of differentiated experience and thus is
part of the world of that world too.

Differentiation implies experience;  there wouldn't be experience if there
weren't differentiation.


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.



Whose metaphysics?  Mine?  Yours?  Krimel?  Pirsigs?  All have differing
answers as to what, exactly, they are "trying to conceptualize".

Mary:


>  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.
>
>

Ham (eschewing sliced bread in his sandwiched ideas):


> 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 think all the "levels coexisting within us" is unfounded?
 Contradictory?  How so?

Personally, I think its the coolest thing since sliced bread.  Although
admitted, I'm not that big of a fan of sliced bread.  I'm a bigger fan of
torn bread, hunks ripped off the loaf,  hot from the oven with a slather of
butter or a chunk of milk chocolate...




> 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?
>


Well I'm with Ham on that one point, maybe there is an ultimate reality that
is always and forever true.  Maybe there isn't.  The process of trying to
decide is what  keeps me going so I dislike dogmatic assertions, one way OR
the other and when confronted with one, am likely to finger-jab, "yeah, how
do YOU know? What evidence can you show me?"


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.
>
>
That actually sounds pretty good to me Ham.  Just on a cursory reading, it
flows for me.  I don't quite know what a "potentiality for existence" is,
and I don't know if it matters whether you say, "existential essence" or
"essential existence",  but I've addressed that dialogue in another thread
so I'll wait and see how you reply to that before I know where we're at on
the congruence scale.

Just to be annoyingly repetitive, I'll repost the wiki definition of
existentialism here for your contemplative pleasure:

A central proposition of existentialism is that existence precedes essence,
which means that the actual life of the individual is what constitutes what
could be called his or her "essence" instead of there being a predetermined
essence that defines what it is to be a human. Thus, the human being -
through his consciousness - creates his own values and determines a meaning
to his life.




> But thanks for this analysis of your philosophy, Mary.
>
> Essentially yours,
> Ham
>
>
Chiming in, yes, thanks for your contributions and dialogue Mary, you bring
a fresh air to stale old philosophers.

Existentially yours,

John