[MD] Food for Thought

[Ham Priday]

Hi again Platt and SA --

[Ham, previously]:
> As Avital says, "negation is what creates otherness."
> It would be incorrect to say "something" is now some
> thing, because Essence is not a thing.  Instead we can
> say Oneness takes on the appearance of the many... >

Platt:
> Here you explain a beginning --  a creation.

That's right.  The illusion of existence is that there are many things, and
that they all have a beginning.  This is the human perspective which is
detached from Essence, hence not the absolute perspective.  The
"perspective" of Essence IS (eternally).  Whatever begins and ends must be
created differentially.  Essence is the uncreated, absolute
(undifferentiated) source that makes the illusion of existence possible.

Ham:
> We look at Essence from the perspective of nothingness
> and construct a reality of "other-beingness" for ourselves
> that we call existence. ...

Platt:
> Here you say we create beginnings by constructing a
> reality for ourselves.

Correct again.  I don't see the problem.

Ham:
> You are making the common mistake of describing
> existence as it is perceived, and assume (intellectually)
> that events must progress from a beginning to an end.

Platt:
> Here you say our creation of beginnings is mistaken.

Our precept of things "beginning" and "progressing towards an end" is
useful, practical and necessary in a system that is divided between
awareness and beingness.  I don't reject existence [SOM]; I simply believe
it's not ultimate reality.  What is "created" must have a creator.  But the
assumption that the creator must be created, just because existence is
created, is false logic.

Ham:
> Only created things "come from" something else -- 
> namely, Essence, which is uncreated.  Man creates his
> reality, in a valuistic sense; but he does not create himself
> or the source of this reality.  Everything in existence is
> subject to change and process.  The source is immutable
> and does not change. Likewise, negation is constant;
> which is why I've said that Essence is "negational" in principle.

Platt:
> Here you say we create a reality which we mistake for
> the "real thing," i.e., Essence.

You've got it.

Ham:
 > What we experience (I prefer to call it "sense") is the
> Value of Essence, divided up into the finite fragments
> we call "things".  Think of it as SQ extracted from DQ.

Platt:
> Here you say we cannot experience the "real thing" --
> Essence -- directly.
>
> So if I understand you correctly, you believe there exists
> an Essence which we cannot experience or perceive and
> which has no beginning and no end. I would suggest that
> this is not a fact that can be argued but a matter of faith
> not unlike that which motivates religious beliefs.

Perhaps.  But then, so is the theory that "Quality is the primary empirical
reality."  Metaphysical hypotheses cannot be proven as "facts".  If we could
prove that there is a creator, we would not be free to believe otherwise.
The freedom to choose our values is an absolute principle of Essentialism.

Platt:
> By contrast, what has always appealed to me about
> the MOQ, with Quality being its "essence" so to speak,
> is that I can experience and perceive quality every waking
> moment of my life. Quality is not something apart like the
> light outside Plato's cave or the Essence of your philosophy,
> but part and parcel of the world as we know it.
>
> That to me is a more satisfying metaphysics. Not only does
> it jibe with everyday experience but it explains those rare
> moments when we experience transcendence, whether
> viewing a painting y Rembrandt, listening to a concerto
> by Mozart, or simply lost in the "flow" of motorcycle
> maintenance well done. That experience the MOQ calls
> "Dynamic quality."

You can choose your metaphysics based on personal "satisfaction" or what
seems most plausible.  I lean towards plausibility.  But I don't deny the
satisfacton.  I, too, enjoy the paintings and the music.  This for me is the
Value of what transcends existence, not its essence.  Again, we do not
experience the Absolute.  "Absolute Value" equates to Essence, which cannot
be experienced by an agent negated from it.

SA:
> Well, then, explain existential experience all of a sudden
> negating, for before existential experience there was no
> negating.  So to existential experience all of a sudden
> negation happens.  So again, where does negation come
> from all of a sudden.  Sure it's a matter of perspective,
> and since you can't perceive essence, then don't try to
> like you did above?

Again you ignore, or fail to understand, what I said about "before", "after,
and "all of a sudden".  These are temporal distinctions (differences and
transitions) that apply only to the subject/object dichotomy of existence.
Life is the subjective experience of a series of events.  Neither you nor
the events are Essence.  They are only the perspective we intellectualize
from the Value of Essence.  If we could experience Essence we would BE
Essence, which is illogical.  So long as your reality is an otherness, it is
not Essence

SA:
> Ok, so, negational is essence, don't put the quotes
> around negational, or again, we're just perceiving from
> existential experience, which I understand, so we'll just
> notice this flux, movement, etc... between essence and
> negational, so, where's this movement from?  It always
> had to have been this way, no beginning, right?

We only observe flux (being in transition) -- right.  That is the mode of
human experience.  Essence always has to have been that way, with no
beginning -- right.  That is the perfect nature of Essence.  Any "thing",
any "change", represents a reduction [negation] of the Absolute.  Thus,
creation -- the actualization of existence -- must be less than the creator.
What makes it "less" is the negated nothingness that is the ground of
existence.  Nothingness separates you from every other that you experience.
Essence is the not-other: it has no nothingness because it has [is] the
power to negate it.

Platt:
> Of course our perceptions can be fooled and often are.
> But given the pervasiveness of Quality in our experience
> -- including your finding that your philosophy has much
> quality -- I place my bet on it being more descriptive of
> reality than a religious-like Essence whose existence can
> only be surmised.

Descriptive, yes.  Satisfying, perhaps.  Metaphysically plausible, no.  My
bet is on a transcendent primary source from which all otherness is negated.

And a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to you and yours.

Ham