[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

>From what you wrote, I believe we share the same philosophy.

Things are not created, per se.  That implies a creator, or some
kind of creating substance or propensity.  Things appear
and disappear.  Evolution, as held by many, implies an ever
increasing, or betterment of the existing.  This is a self serving fallacy. 
Indeed this is one of the evolutionary precepts of MOQ that I have a
hard time getting on board with.  Things appear to prevent a void, as we
know Nature (uncreated source?) hates a vacuum.  

To imply that there is a separate source from us is also wrong.  We
are part of that source.  If there was a big bang, we are that big bang.
There is no underlying source, to believe this creates a schism between
our consciousness and everything else, time and time again, this
has been shown not to be the case, but simply an illusion.  My studies of
the Veda convince me that we are de-evolving in terms of understanding.
The increased focus that the human mind is bestowed with cuts out so
much that we are indeed regressed.  The more outside stimulation we
seek, the less we sense.

The term metaphysical ontology is kind of a redundant phrase, but I think
I know what you mean.  Everything that goes on in our heads is indeed
metaphysical, since it is just a mirror of what is outside, interpreted in
"meaningful" ways.  To understand that brings true illumination to our
thoughts.

I don't think I am fully stuck in the world of cause and effect.  In fact if
I enter the moment, all cause and effect disappears.  However, it is
impossible to communicate meaningfully in that state.  So I resort
to an acceptable way of conversing.  Noun, verb, object, all cause and
effect.  There is no cause and effect, there is only being.  Are we the
cause or the effect.  What is the cause?  Does the effect pull the cause?

There is no need to become free from physical existence, we already are.
Perhaps many do not know this, and therein the captivity arrises, in our
heads.

Cheers,

Willblake2


On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:45:21 AM, "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
From:   "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
Subject:    Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Date:   August 4, 2009 9:45:21 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Will --



> I believe what you write is only one way to look at it.
>
> My observations of the universe is that the striking
> aspect of it, is the presence of circular motion. This
> circular motion is also seen as a wave since the same
> trigonometry applies. A wave goes through a cycle of
> crest and trough. A standing wave has no beginning
> and no end. If one were to imagine time as an endless
> cycle it would have no beginning or end, and the
> concept of infinity would become much more manageable.

However you analogize existence - whether as an infinite line, an endless 
circle, or a standing wave - its primary characteristic is change and 
difference perceived subjectively. The perception is that everything comes 
into being (is "created") at some point in time, including the universe 
itself. This precept has been intellectualized as the law of cause and 
effect.

> If one applies logic, one cannot go endlessly back
> in time, or else it would be impossible for this present
> time to ever arrive (kind of a Zeno paradox). Physicists
> claim (to get out of this) that time began at
> a big bang. I'm not sure which is easier to accept, that
> time just began or that time is circular.

Collecting experiential data and constructing physical theories from them 
will not help us understand the ontogeny of existence. This is the 
philosopher's dilemma. Only when we get beyond cause-and-effect and 
space/time differentiation can we posit an all-encompassing "uncreated 
source".

> I'm not sure if I accept the notion that everything has a
> beginning, even with regard to our self-awareness. But
> that is a topic for another forum. It seems that Williams'
> analogy about the universe being a self contained set,
> also spells a dilemma for philosophy. This analogy is an
> attempt to get outside that set, which then results in an ever
> increasing number of sets, that one has to get out of.
> In fact getting beyond these sets is a set.

An "ever-increasing number of sets", like the infinite regression of causes, 
is a fallacy of existential thinking. Metaphysical logic is not restricted 
to the parameters of fintude. Thus, there is no logical reason to impute a 
"beginning", an "end", change or process to the uncreated source.

> Since it appears that everything changes, the basic forces (gravity)
> are also "evolving", and indeed time is also changing. Biology changes
> in time to the changes of the planet, which changes in time to the
> changing forces, which change in time to time. All this change is
> simply an endless dance, and what a waltz it is.
>
> This is probably not clear, but it's the dilemma I see. Once one
> becomes aware of the ever changing of everything, the idea
> of a beginning kind of loses its importance. Rather than directional
> evolution, I find it more satisfying to view it all as endless
> transformation.

Again, you are describing physical reality - the world of appearances. So 
long as you hold to the precepts of cause-and-effect, you will be chasing 
your tail and will never arrive at a logical solution. Only metaphysics can 
free us from the limitations and conditions of physical existence. 
Metaphysical theories are not bound to relational precepts, and neither is 
the uncreated source. That's why I find more "satisfaction" and meaning in 
metaphysical ontogeny.

Thanks, Will.

Essentially yours,
Ham



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/