[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA--

I found your most recent posting in the opensubscriber list.  (It hasn't yet
appeared on my Outlook Express board, and I may not have copied it
correctly.)

> Sure you may put these discussions in your forum.

Many thanks.  I've already inserted them and hope to put them on line
tonight.  I've dated them the 14th and 15th and they'll be the first items
on the Forum Page response list.

> Here is what came to mind with questions, too,
> after reading your last posting.
>
> You said in the last posting as follows:
> "But the void is our awareness penetrating
> Essence to derive its 'beingness', to fragment Essence
> into a finite thing.  This part makes a lot of sense,
> but right after that sentence you said:  "It's the
> only way the negate can become aware, that is, possess
> an object for itself."
>     The last sentence I picture a void or negate
> forcing its' way through Essence and Essence feeds
> this negate with being giving negate something to be
> aware of in that Essence (according to what you say)
> is All and Existence eventually appears as this negate
> forcing through Essence becomes awake drawing
> distinctions and being feed by Essence.  What do you
> think?

I think this is one of the difficulties of having to use allegories to
explain concepts that have no common references.  Frankly, I don't have a
firm grasp of the dynamics involved, so I can't be specific regarding the
details.  (This isn't like describing how a carburator works.)

Perhaps "penetrating" is not the right term.  I'll try to "invent you" a
scenario that may be more precise, but you must understand that this is
still a fuzzy area for me and I have no other sources to draw upon.  Let me
begin by admitting that I can not answer the question of why the physical
world assumes the particular form or template we experience.  So, please
don't ask me why cherries are red or the moon is round.

Here is how I envision the epistemology of subjective awareness versus
objective phenomena.
Essence itself is the static negational source; it never changes.  In fact,
nothing changes until awareness occurs.  The primary division is between
Essence and nothingness, and all the "action" occurs on the side of
nothingness.  Do you remember my mentioning Pascal's theory for a
single-point universe?  He showed how God could be infinite and indivisible
without parts.  He described it as "a point moving everywhere with an
infinite velocity; for it is one in all places and is all totality in every
place."  Now, I'm not saying that Essence "moves"; but I am suggesting that
awareness is much like Pascal's infinitesimal point.

When I started using the term "negate" I considered it the "no-thing" of
awareness; but then I realized I was talking about a multiplicity of
no-things -- each of which is a nothingness.  Each self-awareness has a
different perspective of otherness.  Since nothing is nothing, and no
nothingness can be different from another nothingness, I think what causes
this difference is the value of awareness itself.  We are each born with a
blank slate (tabla raza) but that slate -- the "pre-intellectual" essence of
our awareness -- is different for every individual from the very beginning.
What isn't different, of course, is Absolute Essence -- the object of
awareness.  This is why there is a commonality to what is experienced (i.e.,
the physical world), even though the awareness of experience is proprietary
to the individual.  You can liken experience to a filter that is equipped
with a different screen size for every self.  Everyone perceives the same
reality, but because the filter screens out different values for every
subject, my awareness has a different value than yours -- not better or
worse, just different.

Now that's a lengthy introduction, and I haven't even gotten to your
question of HOW we experience.  There are really two operations going on
here: a complementation of Value, and an extraction of being.  Being is
defined by the nothingness of our perceptive awareness.  Something
happens -- a change occurs or we perceive a difference in our environment
(otherness)-- and we are attracted to the attributes of the phenomenon.  We
want to fill our awareness with its essence by distinguishing it from its
undifferentiated backgound.  We do this by "encapsulating" or enveloping it
in our nothingness and defining it as a particular "thing" -- making it a
part of us.  In reality, however, we've captured only the image of a thing
and added it to our intellectual awareness.

But that blank background also has Value to us; and the finite "piece" that
we've extracted from it represents a bit of what I call essence-value.  Not
"Absolute Essence", mind you, but conditional value that is cumulative; that
is, can be built up in increments as we experience more and more
particulars.  This value that we're constantly realizing is what we were
"deprived of" to become infinitesimal nothings in relation to the Whole of
Essence.  In effect, we're replenishing our own essence; and it is different
for each self.  The values we choose (freely) in existence are the values
that make us different, one from the other.  At the end of the process, all
value is restored, and nothing is lost but the proprietary self which was
nothing to begin with.

With that long dissertation, I'm going to ignore the rest of your questions
for the present, since I may have answered them here.  I'm sure there will
be more; but the hour is late, and I must get some rest now.  I hope you've
gained more insight into the proprietary nature of awareness and how I
understand it in a valuistic context.

Have a pleasant Friday.

Essentially yours,
Ham