[MD] Trance state

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo --


> This is the old "bone". You consider Man (we allow a bit political
> incorrectness) as existence's rock bottom (why I compare you with
> Phaedrus) I understand you perfectly. To say that there's anything
> outside Man is futile, but therefore it must be suspended   ......OR a
> Man metaphysics (MOM) constructed in the same manner as the
> MOQ with the same Absolute/Differentiated  divide and differentiated
> levels.

I consider Man (being-aware) as the creator of "things".  The "anything 
outside Man" is the "bone".  Only by suspending this existential bone can we 
realize that a relational system of objects and events emerging 
spontaneously in space/time is not ultimate reality.  Its infinite 
regression of prior causes is a logical absurdity.  Appearance and reality 
are two very different entities.

[Ham, previously]:
> Was it not intellect (on man's part) that enabled him to
> theorize a value-centered reality?  I find it incredible that
> anyone can consider intellect an impediment to metaphysical
> understanding.

[Bo]:
> Right, this point is watertight from the premises of Man gazing out on
> a World that he theorizes about. This is SOM and its "intellect" is the
> theorizing.  But MOQ's intellectual LEVEL is the VALUE of this
> Man/World distinction. ...

Man's intellect DOES the theorizing, and the ability to intellectualize does 
have value, particularly when theories can be applied to improving our life 
experience.  Value is the psycho-emotional realization of the relative 
worth, goodness, truth, or beauty of something experienced.  But defining a 
human capability or a value as a "level of quality" doesn't help us 
understand reality.  It doesn't explain the epistemology of the observer, 
the nature of existence, or the metaphysics of phenomena.

> Because it isn't indigenous to existence, there was a time
> before it (social) that didn't know it, and a biological level
> before it that even less ...etc. (these levels constitute our existence,
> but I speak about the time when they were leading edge)
>
> Once the above is grasped, namely that the Man/World dichotomy
> is a static stage that we are hypnotized by into believing is how reality
> really IS, after that cales [?] fall ..etc.
>
> I have read the rest, but this is the crux and without settling it we just
> talk past each other.

You speak in historical metaphors that I don't comprehend.  Let's get to the 
crux of the matter.

If you cannot accept the fact that intellect is indigenous to man (which 
would make it "indigenous to existence"), I've lost you.  You seem to imply 
that the ability to reason, compare, extrapolate, analyze, and conceptualize 
is (was) an evolutionary development of our species.  I won't contest that, 
but I don't see what it has to do with philosophy or metaphysics.  Why not 
focus on what man is NOW, in the world you and I live in.

Let's assume modern man is a "fully developed" species.  What is this 
mystical "leading edge" of intellect that so intrigues you?  Is it 
Archimedes shouting: "Eureka! - I have found it!" when he discovered the 
principle of a lever to move the world?  Had he reached the "leading edge" 
of what you call the Intellectual Level?  Are you saying that all the 
principles, equations, laws, and hypotheses that Man has constructed to 
define the natural world exist eternally at some extracorporal level?  That 
they are not part of man's reasoning process?

You can lombast me all you want, but I'd really appreciate your candor here.

Thanks, Bo
--Ham