[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[markhsmit]

Hi John,

You make a good point, with the rearrangement.  My use of Quality is simply
to be provocative, and perhaps make a point.  But yes, what you say is indeed
correct, in my mind.  And yes, any kind of underlying reality sounds mystical to
me, such as gravity, because deep down I do not understand it and must resort
to feelings to get a hold of it.  My intellect seems to just set up a smoke screen.
So when I refer to my mind, it is certainly not that pedantic short sighted
intellect.

Underlying, over-riding, I guess I see your point, each one provides a
different feeling for me.  Underlying provides a meaning of "source" for
me (perhaps uncreated, I don't know).  Over-riding provides a meaning
of some kind of controlling God.  But that's just me.

A semantic analysis is always good to shed light on one's meaning.

I don't see any reason to drop "driving force" since that indeed is the
feeling I get, I can't help but be swept up in time.  There is nothing
non-mystical about time, except maybe to those who see it as not
existing, i.e. everything exists at once.

So to answer your question the sense of a driving force creates the
mysticism for me rather than if it is under or over or in between.  I find
the use of movement to be more mystical than that of relationship.

And indeed to treat the oxygen as part of you no matter where it
comes from is perhaps close to the vision I see.  I wouldn't be 
too worried about the destruction of a tree, it is nothing compared
to the immense destruction everything goes through every moment.

Constant rearrangement.

I hope your questions weren't meant to be derisory or cynical,
even if so, they made me think (or is it feel) constructively.

Cheers,

Willblake2


On Aug 10, 2009, at 9:48:13 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
From:   "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
Subject:    Re: [MD] The case for an Uncreated Source
Date:   August 10, 2009 9:48:13 AM PDT
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
"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
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/