[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

SA and Michael --

Well now, I guess you didn't know that you've been talking to a ham & cheese
sandwich!
(Thanks for standing up for me, SA.)

Since David appears to have bowed out of this discussion, I'm inviting
Michael Hamilton's participation.  Judging by his questions, I think Mike
understands the logic behind my philosophy more than he's willing to admit,
and that his insights may help us fill the holes in the ontology we've been
discussing.  The statements quoted below (except for the "Ham saids") are
all yours.


> Ham said:  "Essence is the primary SOURCE of
> "everything", but it does not contain what is
> "unreal".  So we have to ask: What is fundamental
> or primary reality?
>
> So where does all this "unreal" come from that
> works and is even beautiful at times?  To push aside
> everything for hundreds and hundreds of years and yet
> to not have the answer might mean a flaw exists in the
> questioning and acceptance of what is to be considered
> 'Is'.  Sure if you want to remain attached to
> something or maybe this is the dynamic aspect of this
> kind of thinking in Western Philosophy, because since
> nothing is sticking as the 'Is' then ideas have to
> keep on coming.  Yet, ideas based on what?

All the beauty in the world, all the elegance of movement, all the insights
of philosophers, are a source of Value insofar as you can appreciate them.
That Value is your realization of the Source which is primary to the
relational happenings that you experience.  So there is a connection.  We
are all connected -- through Value -- to our essential Source.  Value and
the Source are One in Essence.

> Ham said:  "Existence is non-essential beingness,
> and is not real."
>
> You also said nothingness is not Essence it is
> what Essence negates.  Yet, how can Essence negate
> something even if it is nothingness yet, it is
> something because of its' usefulness in your thesis,
> therefore, how can Essence negate something outside of
> itself?  Here has always been the flaw.

I can understand how you might see this as a flaw in my cosmology.  For
Essence to negate something that is "outside of itself" -- that it doesn't
possess -- seems illogical.  As the logicians would say, it's begging the
question with a *deus ex machina*.  Except that the answer to this riddle is
not a contrivance of my hypothesis; it's fundamental to our actualized
existence.  Haven't we both concluded that Nothingness is the ground of
existence as it is experienced?  Haven't we also agreed that Essence "is all
that is", and that nothingness is "what is not"?  Then, nothingness can
never be included in Essence; which means it must always be negated by
Essence.

You'll recall my saying that a thing can't be unless it is made aware, and
that the subject of awareness must be separated from its object.  You also
know that I regard the primary division as the separation of awareness from
otherness.  Nothing can be separated from Essence because Essence is the
Not-other.  Now, if you consider that statement as a logical proposition,
the meaning becomes: "Nothing is what is separated from Essence".  Is it not
also true that the Nothingness we are talking about is a "negated"
nothingness?  A negated nothingness not only doesn't exist but its negation
renders it NOT-nothing; that is to say, "something".  Since there is no
"thing" in Essence, that "something" alludes to what ultimately IS -- 
Essence itself.  Now I ask you, what is a "something" that does not exist
but that is negated by the Absolute Source?

I submit to you that this "something" is proprietary awareness.  Awareness
cannot be observed, quantified or localized; therefore it does not exist.
Yet, at the same time, we cannot deny that it is "something" of the highest
value to us as individuals.  All value derives from Essence.  And if Essence
is "negational", as I claim, our awareness must be its negational attribute.
Indeed, what else can you suggest that lies "outside of" Essence and is also
not-other to Essence?  There is no such entity.  Only Nothingness merits
this distinction.  Hence, WE are the conditional "not-" of the unconditional
not-other.  In other words, proprietary awareness is the essential
nothingness.

If you follow my reasoning, possibly it will remove a few of the holes in
the Swiss cheese.
If not, let's discuss it further.

Essentially yours,
Ham