[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA --

Sorry I had to cut the last post short because of time restrictions.
Despite all the "unknowns", you and I appear to be on the same page
metaphysically.  (And that's a FIRST!)

I think what still troubles you -- and you're in good company because the
greatest philosophical minds have not been able to resolve it -- is the
transition from the Oneness of potentiality to the actuality of particulars.
You refer to the latter as a function of Focus, which I've called
"intellection" or "objectivization".

> [S]omehow there is enough Focus to demarcate boundaries
> to have the appearance of Parts amidst something that
> has no Parts.  It is how Beingness, or the negation as
> you say, how can that happen?  How is it possible?
> How can Focus exist amidst an Essence that has no
> boundaries to Focus upon?  This is where I am having
> the difficulty in jumping from:  All to Parts.

In my thesis, I allude to a "cosmic template" which formats the universe
into the parts
as they are experienced in time and space.  As I see it, this template or
blueprint would have to be an attribute of the inexperiencable Essence that
we are calling Nothingness.  You might envision it as a kind of "filter"
that stands between Awareness and Otherness, allowing only certain essents
(i.e., finite objects) to "pass through" and become sensible.  Nothingness
would be a "universal" filter in the sense that every self (negate) would
have access to the same information, although their varying spatio-temporal
orientation and individual sensitivities would change the perspective and
values that each self experienced.

I think such a template is necessary for an ontology, for the simple reason
that a common concept of the universe could not arise from individual
"awarenesses" fantasizing or "dreaming up" physical reality.  We would not
be able to communicate because we'd all be living in our own world.  Without
a common ground civilization would be impossible.  That's why solipsism -- 
the notion that everything is in your mind -- is unworkable as an ontology.
Even the phenomenalist has to believe that a universal template for
experience is essential.

Most of us see the universe as an intelligent design -- even those who
reject the Designer.  It seems to me that if we can accept what we
experience as "designed", we should also be able to accept the design that
accounts for our experience.  We can't see the design itself but only the
product of its workmanship.  That design is somehow intrinsic to the
potentiality of Essence, and becomes actualized in the Creation process in
the same way that awareness and otherness are actualized.

However, I cannot even begin to theorize why the details of this template
are the way they appear -- why cherries are red (or black) and the moon is
not made of cheese, why the earth circles the sun, why creatures copulate in
the bizarre way they do, why we do not see colors beyond the ultra-violet to
infra-red spectrum or hear sounds below 20 cycles or above 20,000, etc.,
etc.  The scheme for the cosmic template is beyond our comprehension; and I
can only assume that fact to be part of the Design.  I maintain that we are
denied access to absolute knowledge in order to be free to value this
Otherness without bias.  The more one learns about the universe, the more he
realizes that it is the actualization of a Master Plan.

If you think you have a source that can explain the scheme, I would surely
like to know about it.  I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted to explain
it.

I would say we've gone about as far as we can go on the ontology, SA.  But I
would like to get back to Values, about which I have some novel ideas.
Perhaps we can discuss that subject next.

I've very much enjoyed our exchange thus far.  Hope you have, too.

Best regards,
Ham