[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

I do enjoy and learn from this discussion.  I seem to understand more
through a give and take rather than through reading.  Kind of a question
answer.  I'm not sure if this classifies as a Socratic dialogue, or who
indeed is the Socrates.

In my sense of things, metaphysical and mystical are somewhat synonymous. 
I do not understand the subtle differences.  I do not see either as derogatory,
just a term used to express a personal vision.  I do not want semantics to get
in the way.

I have an understanding of what you term self/other, and awareness of being.
Is it created at the interface of the two? In other words, by the interaction of the 
two?  Is it a dynamic interplay?

It is possible that a measure of an ontology is the feeling it provides.  An estrangement
from a source, for me, would reveal a feeling of isolation, yearning, and confusion.  
What my ontology provides me, is a feeling of participation, reveling, and awareness.

When you speak of an organic being, I assume you mean one made out of carbon.  In
addition, I would add a being which is undergoing an experience of constant chemical
communication, that is, not static.  The brain is such an organic process, constantly
adapting to the environment.  It is that brain which creates the other.  This other 
creation, I propose, is mainly through the faculty of memory.  What I have found,
that living in the Absolute, or the moment, has no memory associated with it.  It is
in fact living without memory.  It is quite possible that the estrangement you 
speak of is the memory resulting from the organic state.  Through techniques
and practice, it is possible to get beyond that, and become "unestranged".

Indeed, though such a process, the unity of all is felt.  The sensibility you speak
of may require analysis, which lives in comparison through memory.  My metaphysical
conception of Quality is that which comes before comparison.

Negation of Nothingness is indeed an interesting concept that I must dwell a bit more on.
It still does not explain the separation from the source.  Imagine if you will a human body
made up of cells.  Each cell is autonomous yet make up the whole.  In the same way,
everything perceived is a part of the whole.  There is no need to create anything beyond
that.  To create duality is simply complicating the equation where it is not necessary.
It is like needing to split the Tao into Yin and Yang, or Quality into DQ/SQ.  This is not
necessary if you can simply be part (or whole) of the Essence.  

Cheers,

Willblake2

On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:06:55 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 7, 2009 2:06:55 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

Hey, Will --



> 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.

Why should you or I be bonded to the physical world any more than anyone 
else? Experience has taught me that when someone says "time and time again 
this has been shown", scientific proof is to be inferred. Who do you 
consider to be the "great mystics"? My theories are metaphysical, which has 
little to do with mysticism.

> 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.

The 'I' is the psychic identity, commonly called the "self", whose 
fundamental nature is value-sensibility. It exists only in conjunction with 
organic being.

> 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.

I can think of many thoughts that might be considered paranoid. Belief in a 
primary source is not one of them. A divinity or Supreme Being may be 
"manipulative", but this is not my concept of Essence. And, no, if the 
primary source were obvious, man would not be free to choose a nihilistic 
philosophy. (Obviously, many do.)

> 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 feelings are created by our 
> bodies.
> There is nothing outside creating these feelings, they exist within.

Existence is a self/other dichotomy that relates subjective sensibility 
(awareness) to objective otherness (being). All awareness is value 
sensibility. Proprioceptive feelings (pain, pressure, hunger, and balance) 
relate to the status of the self-identified body. Other feelings (emotion, 
fear, desire, awe, and sensory information) relate to otherness and are the 
basis for our experiential precepts, concepts, intellectual and esthetic 
judgments, and actions.

> 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.

This assumes that "external reality" is matter and/or energy, which invokes 
the perennial mind/matter paradox. I do not accept the externality concept, 
nor do I believe that matter (being) is the ultimate reality. Instead, I 
acknowledge an absolute, uncreated source (Essence). As I recently told 
Bodvar, Existence represents differentially what Essence is absolutely. We 
cannot know or experience Essence directly because we estranged from it to 
become autonomous creatures. We are, however, inextricably linked to the 
source by its Value to us.

> When you speak of estranged from the source, is this like Original Sin?

No, and I don't recognize the relevance of Original Sin to my ontogeny.

> 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.

There is always the Source. Essence is absolute in itself - the One 
'not-other'. No finite being can be "part of" an absolute source. My 
creation hypothesis is that nothingness is "negated" from Essence to create 
Difference, and that this nothingness divides every thing from every other 
in the space/time world of appearances.

For a more complete explanation, you might want to read my thesis at 
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm .

Thanks, Will.

--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/