[MD] Pressed Ham

[Heather Perella]

Hello Ham and dmb,


> SA says:
> >  I'm pretty sure Ham has to know this by now?
> > This not so sure comment is intended towards Ham.
> 
[Ham]  If this is a question to me, I think you've
answered
> it.

ok
 
[SA]
> > This is exactly why I read what Ham says, and
> > think surely Ham believes in Essence where dualism
> > does NOT exist.  Then I've been in discussions
> with
> > Ham where Oneness is denied by Ham.


[Ham]
> You've either misread or misunderstood Ham.  Please
> show me where I have
> ever denied Oneness.  My original manuscript
> submitted for publication bore
> the title: "One in Essence"

Ah, I see, thanks for correcting me.

[SA]
> > Where all-is-connected has been denied by Ham.
> > Yet, I scratch my head and think to myself, surely
> Ham
> > believes in Essence.  Then Ham may comment, let me
> > know Ham if I'm off-track or not, that nothingness
> > separates us and existence has distinctions, and
> yet,
> > in the back of my head I know this all boils down
> to
> > Essence where no distinctions, no self/other, is
> > present known as Essence.


[Ham]
> Ah, yes!  But "all-is-connected" is not Oneness; it
> is a fusion of the many.
> (I might have denied that analogy.)  Connections and
> "levels" don't work.

  Now, this is where I get stumped.  Oneness does NOT
equal 'all-is-connected'.  When I view the latter I am
putting this all together into ONE can of mush, so to
speak.  I understand proprietary awareness, and the
individual consciousness.  Yet, my wife and I are us -
ONE - with unique minds.  This ONE that is us is
called us.  When others look at us they can say there
is a wife AND husband.  Yes, unique individuals and
yet, through commitment, another form manifested
called NOT just her and NOT just me - but us.  I'm not
seeing the difference between Oneness and
'all-is-connected'?  

[Ham]
 Essence does not
> contain divisions -- this,
> that, or other.  It is One Absolute without
> distinctions or differences.
> The distinctions and differences are in existence,
> not in Essence.

     I guess when I'm viewing 'all-is-connected' I
don't notice distinctions and difference either and
therefore I am lumping this phrase together with the
same meaning as Oneness.

[SA]
> > Quality points out the significance, the value, in
> not just
> > the self but the other, too.  Instead of 1 and 1
> being
> > separated, couldn't we just mention Essence and
> notice
> > 1+1 all adds up to 2.  Or in other words, when I
> experience
> > self/other in a relationship, I'm seeing Essence,
> > which as dmb mentions, I'm viewin' beyond SOM or
> to
> > use Ham's terminology, I'm viewin' beyond
> existence
> > (as Ham defines to be self/other dichotomy,
> right?)
> 
[Ham] Wrong.  In Essence there are no "1s" or "2s",
and
> mathematics doesn't apply.
> Finite entities do not exist in Essence.

     Yes, I agree, once I cross the threshold of
divisions math and finite entities do not exist in
Essence.  I gave a terrible metaphor.


[Ham]  You can't
> add subject and object
> and get Essence.  Not even Value can be ascribed to
> Essence.  It is not
> possible for the human mind to "view beyond SOM" and
> "see Essence".  The
> only way to consider Essence is to posit it
> logically as Cusa did: the
> Not-other.

  Isn't this logic providing a view, a 'see Essence',
a 'view beyond SOM' where we view beyond distinctions.
 What does that view appear as?  It has no appearance,
and yet we can mention it.  When I talk about Essence
can you or anybody notice Essence through my words? 
No, not really, and yet, with a twist we can talk
about Essence and get the idea (or not idea if you
will).

 
 [SA] and thus, I'm livin' relationships, values,
> families,
> > touchin' trees with my hands, and dirt with my
> toes.
> > Isn't that the Essence of this, the Quality of
> this,
> > the Significance of this, the Spirit of this?  I
> say
> > yes.
 

[Ham]  "Yes" to what?  Your prose is lovely, but it
doesn't
> define Essence in a way
> that one can respond yea or ney to.  You could be
> talking about values or
> love or having fun or simply what's important to
> you.  Essence is none of
> those things.  Most significantly Essence is not
> you.  (That tends to
> discourage the Buddhists.)

     Yes to - Essence is this, Quality is this.  What
is this?  It is Essence.  It is Quality.  It is
Significant.  But what is this I am pointing out,
since Essence can not be pointed at, since it is a
no-thing? (right?, a no-thing?)  Somehow we mention
Essence and notice enough of Essence to type about it,
same goes for Quality.  Essence is not me, but it is
me and everything else put together, as One.  Most
definitely there are aspects of existence I don't know
about, and I'm sure, to use a metaphor, Essence does
know everything/not-thing about itself.  I don't know
if Essence is ignorant, but I can be at times, due to
lack of knowledge/awareness, in which has me state,
honestly, that I don't know All about All, for
example,  Yet, I know enough about All to mention that
All exists that exists and these relations that
manifest themselves form together into what is All of
this.   
     SOM seems to get stuck in ones head.  SOM can be
used to network and cultivate/develop relationships or
SOM can provide contrasts.  The world isn't labeled
with subjects and objects, and yet, I don't deny we
can view the world this way.  Also, though, viewing
S/O without noticing the / is to keep S and O
separated.  S/O relate to each other and this path in
which they relate, call it / for instance.  This /
allows individuals, subjects, and objects, and also
provides a networking path in which overarching
manifestations can occur.  I stand by a tree.  I and
tree can be separated and somebody else can notice a
yard in which the tree and I are NOT separated.  S/O
allow for uniqueness, distinctions, but the Path /
allows for relationships and overarching definitions
and meanings that go beyond just simply S or just
simply O, for now, we are discussing /.  What does /
appear as?  Well, it could be this yard and that yard
developing into another set of S/O distinctions.  Or
if, metaphorically speaking, one stands on / without
going either too far S or too far O, then we are
somewhere where S and O are joined together and we
stand and notice S and O are NOT separated.  What can
we call what has no distinctions?  How about Essence
or Quality?  Sounds good to me.

 
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com