[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA --

> Ham said:  "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."
>
> AWESOME!!!!!!  Here again, "beyond our
> comprehension", we see Essence still coming through,
> having its' influence, or something of Essence having
> its' influence being present in all of the Parts, even
> though the Parts are what, for convenience sakes
> (convenient for our understanding in identifying what
> I am pointing at) - finite.

Eckhart said: "Each thing has its own distinctive mode and nothing can act
out of character.  Fire cannot do without wood.  God acts at large above
being, animating himself.  He acts on uncreated essence.  Before there was
being, God was: and he is where there is no being.  Great authorities say
that God is pure being but he is as high above being as the highest angel is
above a fly, and I say that it would be as incorrect for me to call God a
being as it would be to call the sun light or dark.

"There is another agent of the soul by means of which it thinks.  This agent
conceives things not present, so therefore I may know them well, as vividly
as if I could see them with my eyes, or even better.  Thus I know what a
rose is like in winter.   It is by this agent that the soul reaches into
nonbeing
and follows God, who acts in nonbeing."
                                                             -- [Meister
Eckhart, The Sermons]

I think what Eckhart means by God "acting in nonbeing" here is an
interaction between the absolute, immutable Essence and the finite, aspiring
Self.  The "action" occurs in space/time existence; but its cause, as you
have noted, is the "quiet stillness" of the Not-other.  In that stillness
one realizes his own nothingness seeking the Value of Essence.

> I would like to pull all of this together thus
> far, which may lead right into what you are calling
> 'Value', which I believe will take us right into
> understanding 'Is Morality innate in the cosmos?'
>
> First, Essence is making a certain Action.  This
> Action is negation.  Just to make an Action means
> something is moving.  For something to be moving
> something else must not be moving so the moving can be
> 'seen' as moving.  In no particular order just a set
> of relations, Action is related to Focus, Negation,
> Awareness vs. Otherness, Finite, etc...  Why cannot
> the Stillness be related to Finite?  By stillness I am
> referring to what is contrasting Action so Action can
> be 'seen' to be taking place.  I would say Action is
> the 'breaking away from'.  Stillness is that which
> remains the same.  Action is always Action, yet,
> movement suggests change.  Here we have Difference and
> thus, Action is related to Difference.  How can
> Essence be Stillness (always staying the same in and
> of itself, thus, being All), and also be Action
> (changing, negating, having Difference occur for this
> creation to be)?  I am inclined to just say Essence is
> Stillness and Action with Stillness being that which
> holds Essence together even under the pressures and
> moving current of Action.  This Stillness is Essence
> being in everything, even, in the Parts.  The
> Stillness aspect of Essence is that which 'Stays' with
> all Parts even as these Parts are negating into
> Awareness vs. Otherness.  That's why when we look into
> Awareness we will 'Still' see Essence somewhere and
> when we look into Otherness we will 'Still' see
> Essence somewhere. ...
> Essence is Stillness and Action taking place at the same
> exact time - the 'one long now'.

That is stating the concept very perceptively, I think.  I extracted from
your description one statement that I don't quite understand:

> Thus, while the Action part of Essence moves about
> changing and becoming an aspect of Essence that is
> breaking down all finite boundaries, seen everywhere
> known as infinite, and expressed as many things including
> the 'one long now', is holding itself together so it does
> not break apart into Parts to never be considered an All.

I don't know what you mean by "seen everywhere known as infinite", and I
don't see Essence "holding itself together so it does not break apart into
parts."  Perhaps you could explain what you had in mind here.  To me the
integrity of Essence is primary; it doesn't have to hold itself together
because it IS One in Essence.  The break into actualized existence is what
is extraordinary, and it will always be a mystery to its "parts".

> [T]hat ability 'holding everything
> together' that I identify as 'Stillness' might lead
> right into what you mention as 'Value'.  The Action
> moving from place to place knowing it is held
> together, valuing its' freedom, desiring to move and
> having an attraction based on Value, yet, attracted to
> move and having that value because 'it knows' of the
> 'Other'.

Again, I would say that the "ability" (potentiality) of Essence is
manifested in its actualization
of relations rather than in its "holding together", since in Essence there
are no "others" to be held together.   In other words, the "natural state"
of reality is Oneness, not diversity.  It is existence, not Oneness, which
is the inexplicable oddity here.

Also, while I agree that Freedom is an important value, it isn't the one
that first comes to mind.  The new opening "teaser page" of my website
addresses what I think is the primary value of every individual.  I don't
even mention the term there, but instead state what leads up to its
realization.  With a little quiet introspection (meditation?) you can
understand that everything you have put aside -- all the distractions,
desires, and needs of the day -- are "otherness" to you.  In the "stillness"
of your contemplation, you sense your own nothingness and the desire to be
filled by Essence.  You are actually inviting Essence to enter your being.
That longing to have the emptiness of your self substantiated by Essence
defines the value I'm talking about.

On a more prosaic level, anything you desire in life represents a Value to
you, as does anything you resent or fear.  There's no mystery here.  As
Pirsig says of his Quality, "Everyone knows what it is."  But what's it FOR?
Essentialists know what Value is for.  It reminds us of our impermanence in
the world, our nothingness in relation to the source, and our need for a
transcendent identity.

You see, you have indeed led us into the topic I want to discuss.  By the
way, why don't you reply under a new heading -- something like "What is the
meaning of Value", for example?
(Perhaps that would entice more of the Pirsigians into the discussion.)

Essentially yours,
Ham