[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[Ham Priday]

Good day, Will --


> 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.

I think we all learn from Q&A dialogue.  It's the correspondent's equivalent 
of asking questions in the classroom to clarify specific points or relate 
the lesson plan to a personal perspective.

> 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 associate mysticism with magic, sensuality, spiritualism, and attitude 
development.  Zen Buddhism and Taoism are oriented more to psychological 
insight than to philosophical theory.  Mystics consider the logical mind be 
the greatest stumbling block to satori (enlightenment), typically employing 
the koan (paradox or mental puzzle) as a kind of "shock treatment" to alter 
consciousness.  For example, the Zen master might ask his student to 
"discard everything". When the monk complains "But I have nothing," the 
master admonishes him to "discard that too."

Metaphysics, on the other hand, is a logic-based approach to understanding 
using deduction and intuition.  It seeks hypothetical explanations that 
transcend the limits and conditions of finite experience, yet can lead to 
concepts of reality that are plausible, cogent, and meaningful to mankind. 
Western philosophy has a long tradition of metaphysical speculation. 
Pirsig's "Quality = Reality" axiom is a metaphysical concept, although the 
terms are not properly defined and the theory is not developed sufficiently 
IMO to constitute a workable thesis.

> 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?

Yes, 'being-aware' is actualized by the interaction of self and other, which 
is the dichotomy of existence.  Because the "interface" of these two 
contingencies is Value, what we have (in space/time realty) is individuated 
sensibility confronting its Value Source (Essence) as differentiated 
finitude.  The properties and dynamics of the finite world are actualized by 
experience, which is valuistic (rather than materialistic or substantive) in 
nature.    .

> 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.

Exactly.  You've described the natural state of the human condition.  It 
explains why the quest for
understanding and meaning is so prevalent in human culture.

> What my ontology provides me, is a feeling of participation, reveling,
> and awareness.

Sounds like you're on the right track.  Does it provide you with a sense of 
purpose, as well?

> 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".

The biological body is our "being" in that it represents that part of 
physical reality with which we are identified, subjectively and objectively. 
Inasmuch as physical reality is dynamic and interractive in nature, I don't 
see the need for a second being that "communicates chemically" and operates 
"through memory".  Memory is a function of cognizant awareness that makes 
experience a continuous stream of events in time.  We all have memory unless 
we suffer from brain damage.  But no individual is "living in the Absolute"; 
it is a metaphysical impossibility.  The "estrangement" I refer to is common 
to all human beings.  We are all separated from the uncreated source, which 
is why we are value-sensible creatures.

> 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.

Organic cells are not autonomous -- they are not subjective, nor do they 
will, desire, or value individually.  The notion that human beings are 
"parts" of the Whole is an existential fallacy.
The Whole is not an aggregation of parts or a hierarchy of levels.  It is 
One in Essence.  No finite human being can participate in Oneness, no matter 
how sophisticated or enlightened he is.  Cusanus said it best: "The first 
principle cannot be other either than an other or than nothing and likewise 
is not opposed to anything."  Essence is the antithesis of Difference, the 
'not-other' that is complete in itself.

Thanks and best wishes,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
_ _ _

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