[MD] Ever redefining self

[Peter Corteen]

Hi Ham, you said:

By "nothingness" I don't mean emptiness; I mean literally "nothing".  The
core
of man's self is nothing; it doesn't exist.  Everything that man is must be
borrowed from otherness -- the Essence that he is separated from.  Man
becomes a being-aware by appropriating and identifying with a particular
body.  He fills the nothingness of his awareness with value relative to a
particular phenomenon at a given time and location.

I think we agreed in an earlier post that 'I' is illusory. So I have nothing
against your
first few sentences. But from then you start to talk about that nothingness
as if it
can appropriate a body and have awareness. You give that nothingness a soul.
I suppose if I can let Dawkins get away with 'selfish gene' then, to a an
extent, I must
accept your phraseology too. So, although some of your peculiar terminology
is slightly
ominous, I can also agree with your following paragraph. I wanted to shout
'Oy, No!'; 'I' is merely
a symbol for the all the static patterning forming me as an individual and
awareness consists
wholly in that patterning also, but then you seem to assert the same in your
last sentences:

Ultimately, man gives up his being totally to Value.
Then there is no more being-aware;
there is only absolute value
which is absolute sensibility
which is Essence Itself.

 So Ham, I find myself in agreement with you here; which surprises me
considering some of the
earlier posts we exchanged months ago. I remember that you said your
philosophical theory was work in progress and off course, inevitably, my own
ideas have changed too; probably you'll write something
now that I will totally disagree with again.

Regard

Peter