[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA --


> What I was saying Action is an aspect of Essence
> (aspect may have to be defined because at this point
> I do not want to say Action is a Part of Essence,
> I am saying Essence is not Actualized at this moment
> of explanation, I'll go on...).  Action is changing,
> moving, churning about and when it is Actualized into
> Parts these Parts are kept together as a Whole, as
> Essence, by Stillness.  This Stillness is the aspect
> of Essence that stays with all Parts, making the Parts
> a cohesive whole.

This may be a "loose end" in our understanding.  The "quietude" and
"stillness" often referred to by mystics is a description of the
contemplative mind of the individual.  I don't think this psychic state or
condition can be applied to Essence which is without conditions.  I'm
content to envision Essence as the Whole of what is, and anything "less"
than that as the experienced manifestation or appearance of a negated
"other".  In reality, any negated other is not-other to Essence; so (as
we've knocked around before), experience is "illusionary" in the sense that
it represents an external perspective of the absolute source.

> [Y]et, without the Stillness that Essence is amidst its' also
> churning bubbling Self then Essence would break apart.
>  Maybe it is the, How can Essence be Moving and Still
> at the same time that you are asking about?  I would
> answer, because:  Essence is always with itself no
> matter where it goes.  This last point I would highlight.

For me, the phrase "always with itself" implies an identity apart from its
being.  This is true for the negate (individual self) but not for Essence
which IS its absolute self.  In other words, Essence has nothing to be
"with".  Actualized existence is not something Essence is "with"; it is how
Essence appears to us finitely negated mortals.

> 'Our nothingness in relation to the source' Are
> you saying this Nothingness [that?] is Essence relating
> to us with our finite, tiny skulls, and therefore this
> is the reception we get when we tune into Essence -
> the incomprehensible Nothingness or Quietness, just
> like when we try to tune into a radio channel and try
> to rid the fussy noise to understand and clearly hear
> The channel?

Something like that.  I'm saying that we have no Essence; we only experience
it as a passing reflection.  We are really "outsiders looking in" at our
estranged essence (essent of otherness).  That is why it has such value for
us.

> One more thing, and this is something Zen or SA.
> Why tune into the reception of Essence heard quietly
> and the picture of its' movie seen as Nothingness when
> it is always Still Here no matter how much we think we
> have to understand it, know of it, and seemingly seek
> it when it is not to be sought because it is Always
> Still Here?  Because, it is Churning, Moving, Day and
> Night, full of Seasons always budding and falling
> leaves, thus, we churn, move, bud and fall for our
> minds to clearly be aware and alert, or else it will
> still be with us, yet, we would not know that, go too
> much into habit, and fall asleep.

I suspect that you have been unduly influenced by the Zenists or mystic
writers such as Robert Blake.  I prefer to leave aside the mental or psychic
sensations and deal directly with the metaphysical ontology.

> Are we ready for discussing the meaning of Value?
>  I am as long as we have all of these loose ends
> sewn-up.
>
> [W]ould you say discussing and finding a meaning of
> Value is to find a meaning of Morals?

No, but I'm willing to discuss morality, too.  Since I'm a moral relativist,
I've already answered the question posed in the heading.  For me, morality
is NOT innate in the cosmos.  Morality is a system of ethics and justice
determined by consent of the collective society in which one lives, and
contingent upon the conditions of that society.  As I've argued with Platt,
there is no absolute morality.  If this has you confused, I suggest that you
read "Confessions of a Moral Relativist" which is downloadable from my
Values Page archive.  (It was a sermon given by a Unitarian minister.)

I'll leave the subject heading to your discretion.

--Ham