[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Will --


> 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
> than 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.

It doesn't really concern me that my thesis may be taken as "mystical", 
provided it is understood.

> 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.

I am mostly self-trained in metaphysical logic, which I don't regard as an 
"art" but as an extension of classical logic.  Mainly, I try to be 
consistent and plausible, which is favored by logical construction.

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

I read about a fascinating experiment some years ago in which test subjects 
were asked to
spit and then drink their own saliva.  In every instance, the subjects 
rejected the once-expelled saliva as no longer "part of them".  Our 
identification with the proprietary body is very strong, as it must be to 
establish an integrated "being-aware".  Technically, however, the biological 
organism which we each identify as our "Self" is "being".  Clothing, 
glasses, and other accessories are generally recognized as external objects 
"owned" by the subject.  Despite the fact that we could not exist without 
it, all being is otherness to the cognizant self.  Self/Other is a mutally 
dependent dichotomy.

> 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?

Ontology is the core of one's philosophy, a theory or explanation of being 
in the world  -- its origin, relations and dynamics.  It should encompass 
(account for) all that exists, including the psychic self.  We are all 
beings, so we are most certainly a part of ontology.  You had said "What my 
ontology provides me, is a feeling of participation, reveling, and 
awareness."  That sounded commendable, although it seemed to be missing a 
sense of purpose.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)

> 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?

As value-sensible creatures, Value is what we share with the uncreated 
source.  I refer to it as "man's link to Essence" and its sensibility as 
"the essence of man".)  We can only experience value relationally, that is 
to say, as responses to finite referents.  Thus, emotional value affects how 
you feel, moral value guides your behavior, esthetic value determines your 
love for music and the arts, intellectual value shapes your worldview. 
Perhaps the best way to understand value-sensibility is to think of it as 
the interface between your Self and Other.  What is your conscious attitude 
toward the persons, objects and events in your experience?  This is what I 
call your "value complement", and it is different for each individual.

> 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?

Awareness is the cumulative apprehension (cognizance) of one's being in the 
world which includes feelings, experiences, concepts, and desires, both 
present and past.  Memory "creates" awareness only insofar as we reflect on 
past experience.  I don't know if there is such a condition as "total 
amnesia"; but if there is, and the patient is conscious, he would probably 
be diagnosed as having a reduced state of awareness.

> 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?

I do not consider subjectivity a biological phenomenon.  So, asking how many 
cells does it take to create subjectivity makes no more sense than how many 
angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Cells and their living aggregates 
reproduce and function according to biological and physical laws which are 
the order of the universe.  The instinct to survive, as exhibited by 
reflexive action, is intrinsic to all living organisms through genetics and 
does not require will or value discrimination.

> 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.

I accept Cusa's definition for the uncreated source as the 'Not-other'. 
Essence does not "exist separate from us," although individual creatures are 
"estranged" from the Absolute Whole.  You might think of existence as a 
finite illusion or "differentiated appearance" of Essence.  We do sense the 
source as Value, however, as I stated above.

> 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.

Will, I suggest you review the thesis page of my website at 
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm.  There is a glossary of terms in the 
appendix at the bottom of this page.  This should help you get a better 
handle on my ontology.  While you're there, you might enjoy this week's 
Values Page column at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm which is an aesthetic 
argument for the existence of God (or Essence).

Happy reading!
Ham