[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi Ham,

I would suggest that to those not trained in the art of metaphysical
logic, your proposal would sound very mystical, as you use the word.
The mere mention of essence and estrangement from the source
has mystical implications.  In the same way, the description of reality by mystics,
as you example, are only magic to those not trained in the art.  To suggest
that the building blocks that you use are somehow more real
that those used by others, is entrapping yourself in a circular self consistent
logic that leaves much (if not most) out.  To recognize that the logic you
use is based on mystical assumptions would be a step up the ladder of
understanding.  However, it is impossible to break out of such a cage
if one doesn't even realize it exists.

The notion that there is an underlying phenomenon termed Quality
that provides the driving force for reality is, in my mind, the height
of mysticism.  While you and your audience may parlay easily in
such terms, and accept it as meaningful reality, it is simply a
convention.  Meaningful only to those indoctrinated.  To others it
is purely mystical.  Those trained in other methods may appear mystical
to you.  

If as you say, that there is a dynamic interaction between yourself and other.  It 
would be instructive to me to understand how you differentiate between
yourself and other.  For example if you take a sip of water, does that
water become part of you?  Let's say you spit it out, is it temporarily part
of you?  Is it only part of you when it enters your stomach, or your blood
stream?  Where does the dynamic interaction begin?  If the interface 
between you and other is defining for you, what is the nature of that
interface.  If you wear a pair of glasses which help your awareness,
are those glasses you or other?  Is the oxygen you breath you only
when it is being carried by hemoglobin, or when it enters your lungs?
When you drive a car, is that movement you or other?

Perhaps a better explanation of this dynamic interaction will help me 
to understand what you are trying to describe.

When you ask if my ontology provides me with a sense of purpose, I am
led to think that the ontology is other, which is then giving me something.
Isn't the ontology part of me?  Or is it separate, like water quenching my
thirst?  I find the question meaningless.  Are the electrochemical activities
in my brain part of me or are they providing something to me?

I have difficulty understanding Value.  Is it how we feel?  Is it something
separate from us, something that we are sensing as an external force?
Is there a point where Value becomes part of us?

When you say that memory is a function of cognizant awareness, does
memory create awareness or does awareness create memory.  Are the two
separate things?  Or is memory one of the many things that creates awareness.
Without memory are we not aware?

If cells are not subjective, at what point does subjectivity come in?  How
many cells does it take to create subjectivity?  If a cell does not have will,
then what is the force that makes it want to continue.  Is this different
from that which makes an entire individual want to survive.  If a cell 
does not have value, what is it that allows it to differentiate between
a variety of "external" stimuli such as electrolytes, hormones, heat,
pressure, cause and effect?

It would be useful to get a better sense of your definitions of these terms
so that I can better understand how this uncreated source exists
separate from us.  If one is estranged and cannot sense this uncreated
source, what evidence is there that it exists?  If it is simply used to explain
a psychological state of mind?  There are thousands of ways to do that,
each with its own effect.

With your final statement "Essence is the antithesis of Difference, the 
'not-other' that is complete in itself." I am led to think
that such essence must be part of us, otherwise it would be other,
and not complete in itself.  I get a little confused by there being
an essence which is somehow separate.

Hope I didn't ask too many questions.

Cheers,

Willblake2

On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:33:54 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 8, 2009 11:33:54 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

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

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/