[MD] Food for Thought

[Ham Priday]

SA:

I've decided to respond to your complaints at length, hopefully getting at
the bottom of your frustration.  I suspect that part of the problem is that
you've abandoned Philosophy for mysticism as an escape from having to
resolve the dilemma of existence.  (I'll address that problem later in this
discussion.)

> 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.

I copied the following from the NKS Forum [wolframscience.com] which may
help you appreciate the metaphysical approach to understanding:

"Aristotle was the first philosopher to formalise the subject of
Metaphysics. As Aristotle explains, Metaphysics is the study of the One
Substance (and its Properties) which exists and causes all things, and is
therefore the necessary foundation for all human knowledge.  Aristotle (and
Leibniz) were correct to realize that One Substance must have Properties
that cause matter's interconnected activity and Motion.  Though Aristotle
did not know what existed, he explained the scientific method such that we
could determine this ourselves.  Thus Aristotle's ideas are very important,
for within them are the clues to the solution of this most profound of all
problems, 'what exists', and thus what it means to be 'human'.

"Ancient Greek Philosophy, of which Aristotle was the high point, marked a
fundamental turning point in the evolution of humanity and our ideas about
our existence in the universe.  Over the past 2,500 years Aristotle's
philosophy has directly contributed to the evolution of our current science
/ reason based society.  Thus it is unfortunate that many people imagine our
post-modern society to now be so 'enlightened' that Aristotle (and other
Ancient Greek Philosophers) have become irrelevant.  In fact the opposite is
true.  As Bertrand Russell observed (History of Western Philosophy), it was
the Ancient Greek Philosophers who first discovered and discussed the
fundamental Principles of Philosophy, Physics and Metaphysics, and most
significantly, little has been added to their knowledge since. ...

"It is therefore both interesting and important to consider the foundations
which caused the blossoming of Ancient Greek Philosophy.  First and foremost
was the realisation that ALL IS ONE, as Nietzsche writes;

"'Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the
proposition that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things.  Is it
really necessary to stop there and become serious?  Yes, and for three
reasons: firstly, because the preposition does enunciate something about the
origin of things; secondly, because it does so without figure and fable;
thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis
state, the idea: everything is one. ... That which drove him (Thales) to
this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a
mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to
express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything
is one!' (Friedrich Nietzsche, The Greeks)

"Further, Aristotle realised that Motion (Flux / Activity / Change) was
central to existence and reality, as he writes;

"'Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary
substance. And here we will have the science to study that which is just as
that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a
thing that is, it has. (Aristotle, 340BC)

"The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain
within themselves a principle of movement and rest.  And to seek for this is
to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the
beginning of the change.' (Aristotle, 340BC)"

"That from which comes the beginning of CHANGE" is the focus of metaphysics.
Unlike the Zen practitioner, the philosopher is not content to accept
paradox at face value; he seeks a plausible explanation.  Since he's dealing
with a transcendent reality, the philosopher can't establish metaphysical
principles by investigating the physical world and having them verified as
"facts".  Instead, he is forced to use logic intuitively.  What he comes up
with is a cosmological theory or hypothesis based upon what he considers to
be the primary source of experiential reality.

> 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.

If you look at the preface page of my website, you'll see that getting
"beyond otherness" is what my theory is all about.  It's why I don't waste
time analyzing biological and societal evolution, morality, physical laws,
units of matter, or patterns of intellect.  These all have to do with the
finite, differential world of experience, whereas I am concerned with the
Essence beyond them..

> What I was trying to say, is, how can you talk about
> essence?  By talking about essence you're 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?

But, you see, Essence has everything to do with existence: it is the
underlying principle behind all that is and appears to be, including our
awareness of it.  That's why I call Essence "the primary source".  Aristotle
called it "primary substance" because he and the positivists who followed
him believed that it was Being.  Franklin Merrell-Wolf theorized pure
consciousness as "The One, nonderivative Reality".  Robert Pirsig theorized
the "primary empirical reality"  as Quality.   I've gone beyond empiricism
to posit an Absolute Essence; however, I think Pirsig was correct to
identify Value as the essence of subject/object reality.  Where he was
wrong, in my opinion, was to regard it as primary.  Value (or quality) is a
perceived difference; it is relative, like  everything else in the physical
world, and therefore cannot be the primary "uncreated" reality.

Ham:
> None of us needs to describe existence; we
> already know what it is.

SA:
> 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.

Your Zen-based meditations on quietude allow you to momentarily block out
change from consciousness, which is already moving you in an "intuitional"
direction.  But it is only the beginning of your journey -- IF you want to
define 'mu' for yourself.

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

SA:
> 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.

I am assuming that Essence is immutable and has no flux.  I also assume that
the change and transition we see in nature is a distortion or limitation of
our sensory awareness.  After all, we are only finite creatures looking at
Essence "from the outside", as it were, and making intellectual judgments
derived from a 14-oz. gel-like blob of mass of nerve tissue which isn't even
our self-awareness.

> 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...
>
> 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.

You, and one or two others here, have concluded that reality is ultimately
nothingness ("quiet") from which things and individuals somehow emerge.
When this idea is challenged, you resort to 'mu', as if to say it's a
paradox that can't be explained.  But what you're really saying is that no
explanation can be PROVED empirically.  And while that's true, it's probably
also true that you entertain an opinion as to what reality is.  Why not go
with that and see if you can build it into a metaphysical scheme that will
account for the emergence of change and dimensional perception?  That, in a
nutshell, is what I've done with Essentialism.

And you are wrong about Nietzsche, who himself was vehemently opposed to the
nihilist movement.  He described it as "the will to nothingness"-the
philosophical equivalent of the Marxist revolution in Russia, the irrational
leap beyond skepticism, the desire to destroy meaning, knowledge, and value.
To Nietzsche this was irrational because he knew that the human soul thrives
on value.  He saw it as intellectual suicide and the harbinger of cultural
annihilation.  But because of his famous announcement that "God is dead!"
and his assertion in The Gay Science that "we have killed him"', nihilism is
wrongly thought to have been born by the pen of Nietzsche.

I suggest that you sample Plotinus, Spinoza, Descartes, Kant, Heidegger, or
Whitehead before giving up on philosophy.  You may just find it more
relevant to "your world" than you've come to believe.

Wishing you a happy and prosperous 2007,
Ham