[MD] dualism redux (Kevin's response to Ham, Part 2)

[Ham Priday]

Hi Kevin --


> Thanks for the clarification.  Could you, in plain, non-essentialism
> language elaborate on the meaning of "the ultimate source?"
> How does one find this meaning?

Since Essence itself is indescribable in finite terms, and I use it a lot, I
like to refer to it as "the ultimate source" once in a while so that readers
will know I'm talking about the Creator and "cause" of existence and not
some exotic perfume, for example.  I prefer "source" to "cause" for the
reason that the latter connotes a series of related events in time, which is
only man's finite perspective.  You'll note that I discuss Creation in the
present tense because in reality it is not a temporal event or process, like
winding up a watch mechanism and letting it run out, but a constant
principle of a "negational" source.  As you've seen, the human individual is
at least a "collaborator" in creating the proprietary image of the objective
universe that we all relate to.  Also, as inventors, builders, engineers,
and artists, man is the source of many creations of his own.  So I couple
"ultimate" with source in order to convey the idea that Essence is the
progenitor or "first order" of creation without which nothing exists.  I
hope that makes my use of the expression clear.

> I prefer different language.  If I had to choose a word
> to give to the source of all I would choose a word like Love.
> Or maybe a word that somehow connotes the inability to
> define.  Maybe a word that can be spoken without the use
> of the tongue or the lips, so as to not "construct" the word.
> Maybe a word that embodies breath or breathing.

That's a noble concept that has much in common with Pirsig's Quality
concept.  But what you're describing is a human response to something (or
someone) relative to yourself.  That's Value.  When I say we can't
experience Essence-Value directly, I mean that only Essence embodies
absolute Value, and Essence cannot be reduced to relations.  What we sense
is the value of an otherness -- Essence experienced from the perspective of
nothingness but applied to objectivized finite things and events.  Also,
Love and Goodness are only aspects of emotional experience, not entities in
themselves.  They are powerful influences in our lives because they are
derived from the Creator, but they do not possess the power to create, and
therefore are not the source of existence.

Good thoughts, Kevin.  I appreciate your open mind.  Feel free to question
me on the thesis when you've had a chance to review it.

Essentially yours,
Ham