[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA and David --

David has pointed to a source for Heidegger's writings, and I've provided
summations of Hegel's and Sartre's philosophies.  So, if nothing else, you
now have some theories to chew on.  As I said, existentialism is by far the
most popular secular philosophy of postmodern Western culture, and its
influences are apparent in the literature, the arts, and the thinking of
a majority of people -- yes, even religious people.

Now, I want to address two issues that have come up in yours and David's
recent posts.  One concerns the so-called "illusionary" aspect of existence,
and the second, the experience of change and transition.

David said:

> I don't see any illusions myself. It's all real to me.
> There are different sorts of real but it's all real.

I happen to agree with this conclusion, and I think it would be
irresponsible to "treat" existence as an illusion.  Existence is our human
reality.  It was surely intended to be lived in, enjoyed, and valued by its
cognizant subjects.  David is also correct in acknowledging "different sorts
of real", and when we try to express these differences, we are beset by
semantic limitations.  We can follow one philosopher's terminology, or
another's, but unless we all agree to the same basic definitions, we won't
understand each other.

For this reason, I have defined Existence as "that which is experienced as
occurring in time and space."  I have also defined Essence as "the ultimate,
unconditional source or 'whatness' of experience".  Until recently, I've
regarded Nothingness as "the absence of what is"; however, I'm in the
process of modifying this definition to: "Nothingness is the absence of
being", as I remain unsure as to whether Nothingness can be logically
regarded as "essential"', that is incorporated into the concept of absolute
"is-ness".  Although we can say that in our relational world a void or a
vacuum exists, we cannot say that anything exists *in absentia*.  If
Nothingness doesn't exist in our relational world, can it exist in Essence?

[Issue 2]
SA said:

> I want to stop you before we continue with
> including any concepts of the past or future. ...I am
> not including past or future in this discussion.  I am
> trying to stabilize this discussion into one long now.
> Sure the sky has no bird and then a bird flies by, so,
> a bird appears where there was no bird, but then
> again, the bird keeps flying so that particular spot
> has no bird.  Yet, I do not see a past, present and
> future event here.  I see a place where a bird is not,
> is, and then is not again.

The natural experience is to see things in motion, to envision physical
reality as evolving, moving, constantly changing.  I understand what you're
saying (see Alan Watt's analogy of the cat seen through a picket fence, also
the "homologous infinite", in my thesis).  Consider motion pictures, which
are really a series of single frames projected at a rate of 60/second with
blackness between them.  Yet, we sense the progression as continuous
movement.  So with history and evolution.  As Hegel pointed out, the "true"
reality is the entire development of things -- things in their infinite
wholeness from creation to the present to their extinction.  That's
Beingness in the world, Hegel's Dasein.  That overall perspective -- sorry,
SA, but it isn't within the capacity of human cognizance -- is the absolute
perspective of Essence.

My question to you two is: Is Nothingness logically included in that
perspective?

-- Ham