[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

When I state "this has been shown to be the case"  I am by no means 
referencing physics or the physical world.  On the contrary, I am referencing
the great mystics, which is precisely why I reference the Vedas.  For you to 
assume I am referencing the physical world implies your bondage to it.

No, what I speak of is beyond.  When you touch on our ability to sense,
what exactly is that "I".  Surely it is not the brain, or the skin or the tongue.
These are just mechanical objects.  If what you mean is that we are
experiencing a human body, then you and I agree.

Yes, of course things come into existence of their own accord.  To
believe in some manipulating force could be considered paranoid.
If there was such a source don't you think it would be pretty obvious.
Or does God intentionally hide for some reason.

What exactly is this otherness?  What we experience is what our bodies
are feeling.  An organization and simplification if you will.  The otherness certainly 
cannot be these feelings.  These feeling are created by our bodies.
There is nothing outside creating these feelings, they exist within.

Imagine if you will that matter and energy is made of a wave.  This wave
clusters and spreads to form the objects around us, in the same way that
the ocean forms waves.  While these waves or objects may seem like 
separate things, they really aren't, they appear and disappear from the same.

When you speak of estranged from the source, is this like Original Sin?
How can we be estranged from the source when it is within us?  Is somehow
our matter different from the rest.  Is somehow our mind different from the rest.
If this is true it can be said for everything.  If everything is estranged, there is 
nothing left to be estranged from.

It could be that we are coming at this from two completely different perspectives.
I would love to hear your reply.

Thanks,
Willblake2




On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:02:10 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 6, 2009 12:02:10 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Hi Will --



> 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.

Indeed, some kind of "creating substance" or potentiality is assumed when we 
apprehend the objective world, even if we don't specifically label the 
universe a "creation". The potential "to exist" is not self-generating. 
Things do not come into being on their own account, nor do we "will 
ourselves" into existence. Causal theories are time-related conceptions 
which are inadequate for explaining the origin of a space/time system. And 
even the laws of physics do not support the notion of spontaneous creation 
from nothingness.

> 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.

This is where you and I part company, metaphysically. When you say "this 
has been shown to be the case", you are defaulting to the very 
misconceptions that have made ontogeny an unresolvable enigma. Since 
physical theories apply only to the relational world, the solution is beyond 
the scope of scientific methodology. I am well aware that the objectivists 
define Homo-sapiens as a highly advanced organism of biological evolution. 
While that is sufficient for the purposes of Science, it does not explain 
the subjective mind or its proprietary sensibility. What we have yet to 
learn from Philosophy is that Value is man's link to the Essential Source.

> 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?

In a parallel thread, Marsha mused that the 'world as is' might be better 
without the subject/object point-of-view. Let me précis my ontogeny in an 
attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of such speculation.

As human beings, we are dependent on the "being of otherness" to exist. It 
is a conditional fact of our biological existence. But as individuated 
cognitive 'essents' we are estranged from the primary source. This 
separation is necessary in order for us to assume the role of "sensible 
agents". What is that role? To freely assess the value of the Source 
experientially (differentially, objectively, and moralistically) as 
autonomous subjects. In actuality, we bring Value into the world as objects 
and events that represent its infinite gradations and qualitative attributes 
relative to the sensible self. If there were a S/O metaphysics (SOM?), this 
would be its paradigm. Of course the paradigm is meaningless by itself. 
The metaphysics presupposes an absolute, uncreated source which I call the 
Essence of reality (EOR?).

> 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.

Well said. There is much truth in that statement that needs to be explored. 
Man must realize his existential freedom if he is to gain metaphysical 
insight. Each of us is equipped with the value-sensibility and reason to 
improve our personal lives. But until we grasp the meaning of individual 
freedom, we will not choose wisely enough to make this world a better place 
for all mankind.

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/