[MD] The Physics of Metaphysics

[Ham Priday]

Dear Marsha --


> Better yet:  Ultimate Truth and relative truth are interdependent.
> No Absolute or Primary Source required.

If you believe in Ultimate Truth but can only know relative truth, how do 
you justify your belief?  What unknown form or entity does Ultimate Truth 
assume?  If you are a pantheist or
an objectivist, that Truth resides in the universe of being.  But if it can 
never be known, of what value is it to you?  Since you deny a primary source 
or Creator, I can only assume that you believe the universe created itself 
and that you are a late product of its evolution.


> Pardon my interruption.   What posits a "cognitive self" and
> "Uncreated Source" other than the "experiential representation"
> formed by this "relational space/time system", or mental ignorance?
> And it's this mental ignorance that creates an independent,
> objective reality and an independent, subjective observer or
> individual self.

If this was intended to be a cause-and-effect analysis, you've lost me.

"Ignorance" of any kind creates nothing, Marsha.  Perhaps you meant to say 
"incomplete knowledge" or "illogical reasoning", either of which can lead to 
false conceptions.

I do not "posit" a cognitive self; I accept it as self-evident, just as I 
accept the experienced world as relational.  Logic is my evidence that 
nothing comes into existence by its own power, which is why I posit an 
uncreated Source.  You reject the evidence and attribute the appearance of 
S/O reality to "mental ignorance".  If I am mentally ignorant, where do I 
find the source of knowledge or wisdom that your Ultimate Truth is based on?

Does the concept that the universe is made of Quality satisfy that Ultimate 
Truth for you?

Just curious, Marsha,
Ham