[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Ham Priday]

Scott --

> Scott now says:
> Actually, I recall Wolff does say something like "Nirvana can be thought
of
> as First Cause of the Universe", though his tone in saying it was more
like:
> if you want to think in terms of the source of the Universe, Nirvana is
that
> source. This connects to the aphorism about the "power of awareness that
> projects objects". In any case, what I said above is wrong. But he does
> metaphysically place Consciousness-without-an-object atop both Nirvana and
> Universe, with Nirvana and Universe  in opposition.

I appreciate your concern in getting Wolff's metaphysics exactly right, but
where to place Nirvana is not the issue.  The author was obviously
influenced by Eastern mysticism, and the attainment of Nirvana (usually
described as "a higher state of consciousness") is a goal of meditative
practice which IMO doesn't belong in metaphysics.  I'm not discounting
meditation as pyschologically beneficial; I just don't think a metaphysical
ontology can be built on subjective experience.  Incidentally, I feel the
same way about using theology as a ground for philosophy, in that case
because it is tied to religious dogma.

I found some illuminating commentary on the author by Tom MacFarland (who
has also written on Cusa) at the Franklin Merrell-Wolff fellowship site,
from which I extracted the following:

"Wolff grounds his philosophy in his Realizations, and not in mere rational
speculation.  In his written report of his mystical unfoldment, Dr. Wolff
identifies three premonitory recognitions and two fundamental, or
transcendental, Recognitions.
-- First Premonitory Recognition: "I am Atman"
-- Second Premonitory Recognition: "I am Nirvana"
-- Third Premonitory Recognition: "Substantiality is inversely proportional
to ponderability"

"The first of Wolff's two fundamental Realizations took place on August 6,
1936. In contrast with the prior insights, which retained objective elements
in his own consciousness and thus fell short of genuine identification, the
fundamental Realizations unequivocally transcended the subject-object or
relative consciousness.  Just prior to the first Realization, Wolff had been
meditating upon the teachings of Shankara, particularly the discussion of
Liberation.  Upon meditative reflection, he realized that his efforts to
attain Liberation involved a seeking after a subtle object of experience.
But any new object of experience, no matter how subtle, was something other
than the objectless transcendent consciousness. Thus, Liberation does not
necessarily involve any new object of experience or change in the content of
consciousness.  To seek such a new object or experience, therefore, is a
mistake.  Genuine Realization, therefore, is a recognition of Nothing -- but
a Nothing that is absolutely Substantial and identical with the SELF."

I find Wolff's conclusion most interesting; not that he finds his Nirvana in
"a recognition of Nothing", but that he identifies Nothing with the "SELF",
while at the same time defining it as "absolutely Substantial".  This, of
course, is the paradox I've attempted to resolve with Reinier and SA.  How
is it that the self of 'being-aware' is a Nothingness?  Obviously there is
nothing "substantial" about non-existent nothingness.

The answer I've come to is that there is no awareness without an object,
that (as Heidegger suggested) actuality is a "becoming" in which the Self
acquires its estranged essence incrementally over a lifetime.  But because
the negated Self can only experience its lost essence as the 'Being of
otherness', what it is really acquiring is the Value of that essence.  To
put it another way, actualization is the process of realizing the
potentiality (i.e., Value) of the Source from the space/time perspective
(locus) of a 'not-Source'.  I justify this concept on the ground that if the
Self were (an) essence, its own value would bias this realization, thus
rendering it imperfect by impairing the autonomy of man's free choice.

Does this make any sense to you?  If not, I won't pursue what promises to be
a source of contention between us.

You made an astute observation in your earlier posting:

> I don't like the 'source' vocabulary because it tends to
> distinguish the source from the result (and see below on causality).
> The wave/ocean analogy applies.

I agree.  And it is why I generally use the term "source" rather than
"cause" throughout my thesis.  As you've probably noted, Essentialism is not
an evolutionary philosophy.

Regards,
Ham