[MD] Food for Thought

[Heather Perella]

     [Ham]
> Very little of our discussion is not part of this
> world.  Too little in my
> view.  The MoQ is entirely a description "of this
> world".  As I've stated
> before, a philosopher has to get beyond otherness in
> order to reveal what is
> essential.

     I like when you mentioned "...to get beyond
otherness..."  This peeks my interest, yet, not quite
sure where this post is headed yet, so... I'll move
on.


     [Ham]
> The "finitude in flux" that we call
> existence is an intellectual
> construction fabricated from the value of Essence
> that we sense
> differentially.  Existence is a reduction of Essence
> -- a negation of the
> Whole -- which creates the self/other dichotomy as
> well as the value that
> holds it together.

     Hmmm, the "...value that holds it together..."
ok... 


     [Ham]
> I don't presume to "know" anything, let alone
> everything.  I only offer an
> alternative perspective based on my own hypothesis
> which, I think, can
> resolve some of the fuzzy issues discussed in this
> forum.

     I understand.  What I was trying to say, is, how
can you talk about essence?  By talking about essence
your placing essence here, right?  Even if you mention
essence is not existence, not here.  So, why talk
about 'something' that doesn't exist and has nothing
to do with existence?  


      [Ham]
> There is no flux in Essence, so how can I observe
> it?  

     exactly... so, how do you 'connect',
'understand', 'know about', or 'sense', etc...
essence?

     [Ham]
> An hypothesis is a
> concept, not an observation.  None of us needs to
> describe existence; we
> already know what it is.

     Interesting you say this, for, I seem to try to
unknow existence, that is, I try to rid my view of
this world.  This also means, I recognize and
acknowledge that I don't know.


     [Ham]
> On the other hand, we
> don't know what the primary
> source of existence is.  We can only arrive at an
> explanation intuitionally.
> That, my friend (and not pontification) is what I'm
> trying to do.


     I admire this.  For I didn't make a tree or my
wife, but I did meet them.  Life is wonderful!


 
     [Ham]
> Why do you assume the flux has no cause or source?

     I don't.  Yet, you are assuming 'no-flux', thus,
something absolute, unchanging is this source, thus,
it seems 'flux' has been demoted as something to be
made by a source, but is not the source.


     [Ham] 
> Physics teaches us that
> every action has a cause and an effect.  Are you
> denying that existence
> itself is exempt from this law?

     Cause and effect is old physics that now-a-days
statistics is left to uphold possibilities, such as
80% chance or probability that this or that is
involved in the cause-effect relationship.  This is
what is taught in academia presently.  Do I believe in
this probability stuff?  Sure, it helps, but I don't
go around calculating and relying upon statistics. 
Maybe somebody in the background, somewhere along the
line as I watch TV, listen to a CD, type on the
computer, drive my vehicle, etc... relies upon these
statistics, and I'm involved in a relationship with
them, and rely upon their calculating, but don't know,
I'm really not sure.  Statistics is also used so the
person involved in calculating these probabilities
also can clearly define what is the cause and what is
the effect.  Again, as to whether what is the cause or
effect, percentages are used to define the likely hood
this is the cause and that is the effect.  Computer
programs do this kind of calculation.  


     [Ham]
> What creates existence?

     not me.

     [Ham]
> What creates you?

     not me.

     [Ham]
> Is it just "poof!"...and existence appears?

    Not really sure if existence has a beginning.  It
seems no matter how far back 'I' goes, to birth of
this human being, to birth of Homo sapien, to birth of
earth, to birth of universe, to beyond birth, to a
'something' before birth, to a 'something that is
nothing' before birth, to mysterious ever-present,
etc..., etc..., etc...  I just don't know.  It seems
all that I do know is here, and here says life, so, I
guess I only know life.  How could anything be beyond
existence?  I don't think a 'poof' happened at all. 
Have 'things' changed?  Most certainly change and
mystery is embedded in this tiny skull.  Since all I
know is existence, I just see existence without
boundaries.  I say I know, but what is it that I know?
 Well, that 'it' that I know will not be understood by
me saying anything... for I'm a simple tiny skull, I
have difficulty explaining mystery, for, mystery can't
be explained.  Quietness...

 
     [Ham] 
> WE do the separating; Essence makes Difference
> possible.

     Or unpossible (not impossible, un-).  essence is
flexible like this, eh?


     [Ham]
> There is nothing outside of Essence.  Nothingness is
> the denial of Essence
> that there is an other.

     How can essence deny?  This existence be
different than essence, this I don't understand.


     [Ham]
> I'll say this once more for the last time --
> "suddenly", "beginnings", and
> "endings" are intellectualized states or conditions
> of existents as they
> appear to us

     How can existents veer so far off-course from
essence, for essence is everything?  Have you seen my
dilemma yet, in how your putting, wording, separating
this?

     [Ham]
> Essence is not an existent, hence
> these terms have no
> relevance to the absolute source.  

     I thought essence is absolute source?

     [Ham]
> Negation does not
> occur at a "beginning";
> it is a constant principle of the immutable source. 
> From the existential
> perspective, creation is always happening.

     Yeah!  And this is what Nothingness in Zen means.
 Nothingness isn't a negative, nonaffirmation. 
Nothingness in Zen frees up or dismisses
borders/boundaries, thus, the notion of formless, yet,
this does not mean particulars, such as individuals,
do not exist.  Nothingness just doesn't draw up a
Substance border that defines an ultimate reality, for
to do so would objectify ultimate reality.  Yet,
ultimate reality is not something to be objectively
found, but it is not subjectively found either.  It
just is, and yet, what is this 'It'?  Mysterious...
And it is not a rock (object) and definitely not
encapsulated in this simple tiny skull of mine
(subject).  Yet, it is not beyond this object and
subject either, unless I'm just babbling incoherently
about something that is not just rock, not just me,
and yet, somehow, responsible for both.  This ultimate
reality doesn't rid free-will, for nothingness has no
borders, it is ultimate freedom, but this does not
mean no distinctions either for ultimate reality is
all-freedom and all-distinctions... so what is this
ultimate reality?  I'm not able to define this
ultimate reality, and this is what Nothingness in Zen
means.  It is not a Nietzsche nothingness.  This is
supported by Zen practitioners from China and Japan. 
Zen is affirmation and negation.  Nietzsche rid
everything is death with no life, at least, that's how
I put it.
     
     [Ham]
> What is "choice" on the part of a perfect source? 
> Choices are options open
> only to imperfect, created beings.  Yes, one could
> say that man was created
> by Essence to sense value and make free choices. 
> That, for me, is the
> purpose of life.  But it is not for man to
> extrapolate into the "perfection"
> of Essence.  Such metaphysical truths are not
> accessible to man.  If they
> could be known, they would violate the principle of
> individual freedom.


  I totally agree, except, I'm not sure if essence
would choose or not choose.  Wouldn't being creative,
as I notice essence is, apply a freedom inherent in
essence to do as essence would, but I can't really say
this either, essence, ultimate reality, for me, is
best left amidst this quiet-knowing, which is a
knowing that I don't know.


     [Ham]
> I'm mystified by what you call my "affirmative
> knowledge"

   In this instance, I mention affirmative knowledge
of essence without the mysterious aspect of essence. 
If you are affirmative in your knowledge of essence
without mystery of essence, then it would mean your
not allowing yourself to be a tiny skull.  You keep
saying essence is separate from existence, yet, you
say you know essence.  How can you know essence when
your existence, which includes concept, is separate
from essence?  This is what I meant.

     [Ham]
> ...and what you mean
> by "quietness that I don't speak".  If stating my
> personal convictions is an
> offense to you, I'm sorry.  But isn't this what a
> philosophy forum is for?

     Far from it, no offense, at all.  By "quietness
that I don't speak" what I'm saying is we all know
quiet.  I don't even have to speak quiet for you to
know quiet.  What happens while your quiet?  To use a
familiar concept of yours, what happens in your
proprietary awareness?  To notice what happens in our
own awareness is to be quiet and notice.  Yet, to not
notice is something we can't do, so, we always notice,
yet, to notice while we are quiet is to notice
something I can't put into words, is not just me, not
just rock.


     [Ham]
Essence negates nothingness (i.e., not-Essence).  It's
the only "thing" 
that
Absolute can negate without reducing itself or "losing
something".
Nothingness is the "not-" of Essence.

-------

     From what I understand.  When you say Essence you
are including nothingness, the "'not-' of Essence".  I
agree ultimate reality is this way.


     [Ham]
It is not a void in Essence but a
"hole in being", as Sartre suggested.  The unreality
it causes is the
subject/other dichotomy.

-----
     I would say S/O is not an unreality, but it is
not full reality if we believe/think S/O distinction
is all that is.

     [Ham]
If you can't accept nothingness as an active
agent, then consider it responsible for reducing the
One to "the many" 
in our subjective experience of an objective world. 
I've used the analogy 
of a prism to illustrate how the negate (awareness)
differentiates value in sensory experience, just as
the glass prism refracts white light into 
its many colors.  These relative values, having been
separated by 
nothingness,
are what we use to objectify "things" and their
properties in the world 
of
experience.

-----
    I have no argument here, but I really don't know
if this is how it works.


[Ham to Platt, in response to his opinion that the MOQ
was "more
descriptive" and "satisfying"]:

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

SA:
> Plausible again pops up.  You decided
> plausibility here due to your knowing everything
about
> essence, yet, I thought nobody knows everything
about
> essence.  If it is the latter, then I get it for I'm
a
> tiny skull getting nothing of it... so, mu, mu, mu,
> all the way home.

     [Ham]
I should be flattered that you think I know
everything.  Truth is, I'm
discouraged that your rebuttal never changes.  You
keep coming back 
with the same questions, which shows that nothing I've
explained has sunk in.  Have
you ever considered that your mental block concerning
metaphysics may be the result of excess communing with
Nature?  Perhaps the "world is too much with you."

     If this is your dividing line between plausible
and satisfaction, the world is with somebody so they
fit into satisfaction category.  Yet, the more
plausible explanation is 'world is not with you', then
I don't get it.  I do understand, as I mentioned
before to you, and at this beginning of this post,
that I did not create this world, but that doesn't
mean I'm separate from this world and it doesn't mean
this mysterious creator is separate from this world,
too.  My question is how do you judge what is more
plausible than something else?  That is what I meant
by mu, for, if I understand essence correctly, essence
isn't just this existence so it mu's existence.  Yet,
from what I understand, or maybe it's how I use mu, mu
isn't a separating event.  Mu is just applying the
notion that essence-existence (I think they are
joined, not separated) is not just rock, not just me,
mu is rock, is me, and much more that I can't say, but
do experience.  How is this much more than rock and
me?  Well, this is rock-me, which is noting not just
rock and not just me, it is noting rock-me.  


quiet little o'l tiny skull can't grasp, thus, does
experience mysterious ultimate reality, 
SA 

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