[MD] the subjective

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ham, 

[Platt] 
> > Can Essence be known (realized) without a sensible agent?

[Ham] 
> Known, knowing, and knowledge are words I reserve for subjective
> awareness. 
> "Realization" is perhaps a better term for the awareness of value, but it
> is 
> still dichotomous in that it requires an 'other' as the referent.  I gave
> this lots of thought while developing my ontology, and concluded that 
> "esthesis" best expressed the absolute, undifferentiated sensibility of 
> Essence.  (Runes defines esthesis as "a state of pure feeling
> characterized 
> by the absence of conceptual and interpretational elements.")  But, since
> esthesis is not a word used in common parlance, I settled for Sensibility
> in 
> my thesis -- hence, the sensibility/otherness dichotomy.
> 
> I don't believe the finite mind is capable of comprehending "absoluteness"
> or describing the nature of its sensibility.  However, I am convinced that
> Essence incorporates absolute sensibility, whatever that may suggest in 
> finite understanding.

Please excuse me for not being able to fully understand your reply. I have 
trouble following the meanings of "sensibility," "absoluteness," and then 
the combination "absolute sensibility."  Be that as it may, I take it your 
answer is, "Yes. Since it includes sensibility it can know itself. Further, 
it was known only to itself until it created sensible agents. Now we agents 
can know it primarily through aesthetic experience. "

Is this interpretation anywhere near your view?

[Platt] 
> > What motivated Essence to create us agents of itself?

[Ham] 
> Again, motivation is a causal term that I'm not comfortable applying to
> the 
> potentiality of Essence.  What Essence IS is manifested in what it 
> actualizes (in existence).  Also, I believe the individual self is an
> agent 
> of Value (a manifested other), not Essence per se.  Since Essence is 
> indivisible, nothing that is manifested in existence can be "essential",
> and 
> that includes selfness.  Value comes closest to being an "attributive 
> quality" of Essence, but we can only sense it differentially and
> experience 
> it objectively.
> 
> If what you're really asking is, Why are value agents created?, it is my
> theory that only an agent that stands apart from Essence can realize its
> value as an other.  This independent realization, in what I surmise may be
> a 
> "cosmic principle", completes or "perfects" Essence.  Each of us turns
> value 
> into a reality that is our universe, incrementally reclaiming this value
> for 
> ourselves.  Inasmuch as we are essentially value-sensibility, whatever 
> survives biological life can only relate to the value of Essence.
> 
> Hint: Page 79 of my book (particularly the last paragraph) addresses value
> in this context somewhat more comprehensively.  I think you might benefit
> by 
> reading it.

Yes, I benefited greatly because it answered my question succinctly. 
"Because Essences is unappreciated in its Oneness, having its value 
perceived extrinsically perfects its sensibility . . . If this explanation 
doesn't seem logical to you, you can always credit the relational universe 
to the 'magnanimity' of the divine One." 

Thanks, Ham. Great to have a copy of your book handy.

Best regards,
Platt