[MD] What all is about.

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Peter --



> I don't think it's possible to understand the ultimate fabric of nature;
> this, if I'm not mistaken, is your 'Essence'.  I don't think 'they' will
> ever complete a grand unified theory or model of nature; they'll get
> closer and closer but never succeed completely.
>
> That being the case though, I would still think Essence is natural -
> absolutely natural; rather than supra or super natural - even though
> unbounded by time, space and form, as you say. Hawking says time
> did not exist before big bang - I think from a practical point of view
> he may well be right - he's very brainy after all and I'm just an
> unexceptional guy; but, to accommodate that idea of time I have to
> consider the big bang (perhaps that should be capitalised too) a
> transitional point which we cannot see beyond.

I appreciate your expressing ideas on a personal level, Steve, and can 
understand why your position is that of a philosopher without a metaphysics. 
You raise several significant points that deserve some  thoughtful response.

When you say "they" will never complete a grand unified theory, I assume you 
refer to scientists or cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawking and John 
Wheeler, who have emerged as the "philosophers" of Science.  It's true that 
we have heard about parallel universes, string theory, and anti-matter in 
the last century, and undoubtedly we shall be exposed to other innovative 
ontologies in the future.  I am of the opinion that it makes little 
difference to mankind what theory Science subscribes to.  I say this because 
objectivist theories are all predicated on physical reality, and their 
credibility hinges on conclusions that are consistent with the "natural" 
principles which have made Science effective as a pragmatic method for 
controlling man's environment.  Given a physical universe, science and 
technology are our most useful source of information on How to master it; 
they are not particularly adept at answering the Why questions.  For me, 
that is the province of philosophy.

I like what Robert Lanza has said about the limits of scientific knowledge. 
Lanza heads up cell research at a major biotechnology company and believes 
that the physicist's attempt to come up with grand theories to account for 
the origins of everything misses the point of it all:

"As exciting and glamorous as these theories are, they are an evasion, if 
not a reversal, of the central mystery of knowledge: that the laws of the 
world were somehow created to produce the observer.  And more important than 
this, that the observer in a significant sense creates reality and not the 
other way around. ...Physicists venture beyond the scope of their science - 
beyond the limits of material phenomena and law - when they try to assign 
physical, mathematical, or other qualities to space and time. ...Modern 
science cannot explain why the laws of physics are exactly balanced for 
animal life to exist."

Dr, Lanza's complete essay, "A New Theory of the Universe", is archived on 
my website at http://www.essentialism.net/NewTheory.htm .

> When I was a child I did believe in God, then a brainy guy at
> grammar school told me that God was scientifically unsound and
> I lapsed into agnosticism.  Years later, when I got married and had
> a child I found myself begging God for some particular thing or
> other to happen in return for which I would behave in future in such
> and such a way. Now I have given up such wishful thinking and am
> atheist; it sounds trivial but confirmation of my atheism came when
> I realised my fear of the dark had gone.

Most of us have "bargained with God" in our youth; but a deity that grants 
special favors in return for good behavior is not the kind of primary source 
that ensures the autonomy of its sentient agents. Spirituality is not an 
either/or proposition.  Don't rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 
You don't have to turn agnosticism (not knowing but not rejecting) into 
atheism (refusing to believe) on the basis of a false premise (i.e., that 
God is an anthropomorphic benefactor).

> I am your 'objective' man, even though I realise value is the pre and
> post intellectual source of my knowledge. I don't have to invent my
> values - Pirsig's hot stove. You are right that for me meaning is
> ultimately grounded in physical reality but after all the sorting and
> sifting and digesting my projected inner life is experienced as
> completely free from the physical and can toy with ideas that can
> never have a true physical counterpart - the sphere for instance,
> that is part of the Platonic 'world'.
>
> Again, because I hold with rationality, for you I am a nihilist -
> how can you even talk to me?

This reads like what a priest might expect to hear in the Confessional!  In 
the first place, I talk to nihilists all the time.  My oldest and best 
friend calls himself a stoic, but is really an "objective idealist".  If you 
can "toy with ideas that never have a physical counterpart", you are at 
least an idealist also.  Secondly, why do you assume that "rationality" 
applies only to objectivists?  I consider myself rational; I even promote my 
ontology as a rational hypothesis, despite that fact that there is no 
empirical proof for it.

> I think people who talk about their spiritual life are people who
> still believe in spirits and that's not for me, even though recently
> I have been reading a gripping story about vampires.

I don't believe in spirits either, but I'm convinced that there is more to 
the Roswell incident and UFOs than the government has made public.  Does 
that make me a "supernaturalist"?  Tell me this, Peter: do you think that 
Cusanus's first principle -- an absolute source that is the coincidence of 
all contrariety -- is an irrational concept?  Is it any less rational, let's 
say, than a theory of multi-parallel universes?

> Jung said that if the creator were conscious he would not have
> needed to create conscious beings. Your Essence certainly has
> the potential for consciousness (through evolution) but is it
> conscious in it's undifferentiated state? Can it re-integrate?

I don't credit Karl Jung any more than William James for philosophical 
thinking, but I do believe there is a cosmic purpose for consciousness.  But 
your question is a profound one: Is Essence conscious in its 
undifferentiated state?  Generally I avoid trying to describe the ineffable, 
but I have given much thought to this question--at least 30 years' 
worth--and this is what I've concluded.  Just as Pirsig equates Quality with 
Reality, I equate Essence with Sensibility.  Whereas consciousness infers an 
object in transition, I believe that Sensibility has an absolute identity 
that is undifferentiated.  Unlike Donald Hoffman (the cognitive scientist 
who theorized an absolute Consciousness), I see Essence as the potentiality 
of Absolute Sensibility, which is to negate nothingness and create 
difference.  In other words, I regard experiential (actualized) existence as 
Essence differentiated by nothingness.  (This concept is too involved to get 
into here, but I've tried to develop it in my thesis which you can access 
from the URL I've cited above.)

> I can understand from all you have described that your Essence is
> absolute and conceivable only through intuition but still cannot imagine
> it to be outside of nature; instead, it seems to me to be the underlying
> fabric of nature as I said before.

What one calls "nature" is a matter of semantics.  I usually consider it to 
be the "otherness" of the objective world.  But conceptually, I can't argue 
with you.  That is, if you want to call Essence the "fabric of Nature", it's 
OK by me.  In any case, it's the Essence of Reality.

> You've denied being a theist and you seem reluctant to call yourself
> atheist; perhaps you are the agnostic one.
>
> Ham, I can't reconcile all of your pronouncements about Essence, so
> I regret to say that I am unable to decide your theistic status; perhaps,
> like Essence, it is unknowable, and vacillating, in a kind of MU no man's 
> land.

Perhaps, although it has been very steady lately :-).

Seriously Peter, your comprehension of my Essence concept is quite adequate 
and, if it's any compensation, is far above that of the majority here.  I 
think your dilemma comes down to what is most reasonable for you.  I am a 
slow learner, but I'm also not comfortable living with an "unknowable" which 
may be the most important truth there is.  This has forced me to work out a 
solution for myself, which may or may not be acceptable to others.  You may 
consider what makes sense to me a "faith-based" cosmology, and to the extent 
that it is incapable of empirical validation, you would be right. 
Ironically, Mr. Pirsig's Quality thesis has strengthened my conviction that 
Value is the individual's connection to Essence, and despite all my 
complaints about the MoQ, I am indebted to him for this.  I'm also gratified 
that you have given me this much attention.

Essentially yours,
Ham