[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[John Carl]

"Greetings Mark,
Pardon a quick in-n-out by yours truly,

you wrote:


>
> 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.


Well lets lay aside any possible quibble with terms and thus change your
statement into:

"The notion that there is an underlying phenomenon that provides the driving
force for reality is, in my mind, the height
of mysticism."

Does it now  make sense?  Perhaps so.  Perhaps any sort of "underlying
phenomena" sounds mystical to you.  In fact, mystical realities cannot be
defined and "underlying phenomena" is a sort of definition.  Quality, for
instance, could be viewed as "an over-riding phenomena" as effaciously.  So
let's drop that term as well.


The notion that there is a driving force for reality is, in my mind, the
height
of mysticism."

Of course, "driving force" is a definitional term as well as a concrete
mechanism (albeit not understood completely) so perhaps in true mystical
fashion, we'll drop that definition as well.


"The notion that there is  reality is, in my mind, the height
of mysticism."


Now that does make a certain amount of sense, but only if you now connect
the "in my mind" with the source of reality, then that sounds indeed the
height of mysticism.  But that was not the original intent of your
statement, so it wouldn't be fair to imply it now.  Instead, for
understanding at which point the "height of mysticism" enters in we need to
ask at which point as we add your  definitions back in, do you determine
this mysticism arises?  When you add "driving force" or when you add
"underlying phenomena" or is it when you go all the way  back and term it
"Quality".    Whence comes the height of mysticism?  In your mind, I mean.


>
> 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?
>

I like to posit trees putting out oxygen as part of "my" lungs, so I like to
think I get your point and I like to think it's a good point.

Me yelling at my neighbor trimming his tree; "Hey!  Get your chainsaw away
from my lungs!"



> Hope I didn't ask too many questions.
>


Quantity again!  That issue has been playing with my brain.  They were
Quality questions, so I don't think you can have too many of them.


Thanks for the interesting questions.  I hope Ham provides some interesting
answers.


John

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them."


    (Werner Karl Heisenberg quote stolen fresh from Marsha this very morn
and is my new favorite saying)




>
> Cheers,
>
> Willblake2