[MD] The Quality of Freedom

[Ham Priday]

On 12/06/09, at 8:01 AM, Arlo writes --

> [Ham, previously]
> In summary, I maintain that it is a moral travesty to dismiss or reject 
> the
> discriminative and rational faculties with which human beings are uniquely
> endowed.
>
> [Arlo]
> Prior to this, you deny the source of this "unique endowment" as either
> biological (genetics) or social (enculturation). So I ask you, again, 
> where
> does this "unique endowment" come from?

Biology is a name we have given to the study of cellular mechanisms that are 
perceived to form living organisms.  Social is the name we have given to 
interrelational activities involving individuals identified with a specific 
group or community.  Of the two names, Biology (i.e., cell formation 
following genetic patterns) can be considered a "process" of creation.  The 
cognitive faculties of man, however, are not created by cell formation or 
social interraction.

> Let me rephrase. I assume that at some point, let's call it Point A, this
> "unique endowment" did not exist within the "cosmos". At a latter point,
> let's call it Point B, it does exist within the "cosmos". What changed
> between Points A and B that accounts for the appearance of this
> "unique endowment"?

Do you want the "short answer" or the "long answer"?  The short answer is 
that man's unique endowment comes from Essence. Following is the long 
answer.

When you cite reference points in time you are invoking causality, which is 
the way humans intellectualize process or change observed a relational 
system.  Phrases like "come from" and "change to" reflect causal thinking. 
Existence is perceived as a cause-and-effect system, but the creative Source 
is not.  So, while one may say that the capacity for conscious perception 
and intellection is made possible by a particular configuration of neurons 
in the human body (as detemined by the process of genetic evolution), this 
is a perceived "effect of causation" rather than the "primary source" or 
genesis of conscious awareness.  Empirical evidence focuses only on the 
instrument of consciousness, not its essence.

Consciousness (sensibility) is not an 'existent'; that is, it cannot be 
quantified, localized, or objectively observed.  For that reason, I prefer 
the term "essent" to designate derivatives of Essence which are non-existent 
in the traditional sense, such as Awareness, Value, and Nothingness.  As a 
phenomenalist, I also regard existence in its totality (the cosmos) to be 
the product of ("actualized by") experience.  Speaking metaphysically, 
essents are primary to existents which are actualized from essential Value. 
Actualization is secondary to creation, which means that in my ontogeny 
there is only one Creation -- the negation of differentiated existence from 
Absolute Essence.

In other words, the time/space dynamics of evolution and the existential 
entities that appear to the cognizant observer are experiential phenomena. 
While this ontogeny has little practical value for those who put their stock 
and trade in physical reality, I have found it quite useful in understanding 
metaphysical reality.

I know this won't satisfy you, Arlo, but creation is infinitely more than a 
point A moving to a point B.  (And so is biological evolution, by the way.)

Thanks for your query.  I hope I've been helpful.

Regards,
Ham