[MD] The case for an Uncreated Source

[John Carl]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM, markhsmit <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> 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.


Well you'll have to clarify that last one a bit for me, I'm afraid.  I mean
look at time, it is nothing if not a description of relationship and
movement.  E=mc2 and all that.  Relatioship IS a form of time and time a
form 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.
>

Right!  And we have cells in our body which are dying, being replaced, and
we don't notice or mind.  But if a critical mass of our cells OR oxygenating
plants die, then we die.  So it looks like that critical component Quantity
rears its head again!  (Who was it that raised the quantity aspect of
Quality?  It was a good point, I wish they'd jump back into the discussion)



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

What?  Derisive? Cynical?  Me?  Heaven forbid.  Ok, now and then for purely
rhetorical effect, but never against the true spirit of inquiry which you
have displayed.  Be assured.





>
> Cheers,
>
> Willblake2
>


backatcha, mark,

John


>
>
> 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/
>
>
> 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/
>