[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,
Looks like you are being kept busy.  My question was what do you mean
by experienceable.  I think you answered the question below, which is
along the same lines I was thinking, or maybe not.  I was pointing to
the idea that we can have concepts that are not experienceable.  We
imagine them.  In the same way, you imagine there to be an absolute
essence.  I have no problem with that, it is not that far off from
other concepts of what is behind all of this.

I can see that we have physical entities and non-physical entities.
Love would be a non-physical entity.  We can't measure it, but it
certainly exists.  For me Eckhart's notion of Is-ness is the notion of
presence.  All presence is connected by being present.  In many ways
it connect to the concept of ultimate synchronicity.  The notion of
Not-other, if I understand you correctly would also be what I refer to
as presence.

You have a unique way of describing the dichotomy of Is-ness and its
complete opposite, in the context we are using it.  I think it has
value, however, it places our awareness in a very powerful place,
which Eckhart would disagree with.  This is where I differ from you.
In my view, we are the product, not the creator.  This outlook simply
recognizes what I extrapolate from my common sense.  But I guess you
already knew my view.

Keep going, I get little pieces here and there.

Cheers,
Mark

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark --
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>
>
>> The truth of the matter is that what is not experienceable
>> to human beings is indefinable. Therefore, attempts to define
>> ultimate Reality as a qualitative abstraction, such as Being,
>> Consciousness, Energy, Value, or Goodness are no more
>> valid than equating it to a known physical entity.
>> Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century came up with the
>> principle of the 'Not-other', which is arguably the best
>> working definition possible for metaphysical reality.
>
> [Mark]:
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by experienceable.   There are
>> many things that we cannot experience, yet have a concept for.
>> We cannot experience a complete vacuum, but we can define it.
>> We cannot experience life ever after, but we can define it.
>> We have the ability to extrapolate to that which we cannot
>> experience.  Like: "It feels like this, only 10 times as strong",
>> or, "Bosons exist according to the math, but they have no mass".
>>
>> Just because we cannot experience something, doesn't mean
>> that we can't create the experience for it.
>
> In terms of validity, your statement above should contain the words
> "less valid" instead of "more valid".  In my opinion.
>
> A perfect vacuum is definable as the absence of air pressure.  It's
> experienceable in terms of partial vacuums, such as the suction developed by
> a vacuum cleaner.  We can conceptualize "life ever after", but we can only
> define the concept because we cannot experience nothingnes.  An
> "extrapolation" is not a definition.  In short, we disagree that defining a
> concept is the same (or as valid) as defining an experienced physical
> entity.
>
> Cusa's First Principle defines the "concept" of the 'Not-other', not the
> experience, so it's not a "valid" definition.  But in metaphysics it's the
> concept that we are after, and Cusa has given us a "handle" with which to
> deal with what is otherwise ineffable; namely, the Absolute Source.  It
> works for me in the same way as does Meister Eckhart's 'IS-ness'.
>
> Thanks, Mark.
>
> Ham
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>