[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[Ham Priday]

Hi Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> Looks like you are being kept busy.

Yes, I'm afraid Tim's "frustration" over my thesis has made further 
discussion an exercise in futility.  Perhaps if I let him cool off for 
awhile, he'll bury his axe and start listening instead of fighting.  Isn't 
it ironic how resistance so often turns to anger just as we are on the verge 
of understanding?

> 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 suppose we can regard intuition as a kind of imagination.  Any 
metaphysical
view of Reality, however, must inevitably contradict our "empirical" view, 
no matter who the author is.  If we can't accept contradiction, we had best 
put metaphysics aside and amuse ourselves with poetry or music.

> 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 connects 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.

No, we didn't carry our dialogue far enough for me to get a handle on your 
worldview.  It would appear to be an "anything goes" attitude toward 
reality.  This muse which you posted to Tim on 12/10, for example, set him 
off on a tangent that Quality must be the universal divider:

> Quality for me means there are differences between things,
> and for whatever reason we like some more than others.
> Rather than such differences arising from the presence of
> things, we can look at it the other way around and say that
> it is the differences that creates the things.  Thus Quality
> comes in as the creator, by separating, rather than the result.

For sure we are "products" of a creator, Mark.  Where we differ is on the 
question of what that creator is.  I maintain that Quality (i.e., Value) 
cannot be our creator because we are needed to realize (actualize) it.  For 
the same reason, Beauty doesn't create art, Logic doesn't create math, and 
Love doesn't create the love object.

Since the term "nothingness" confounds everybody, suppose we adopt Eckhart's 
'IS-ness' and coin the word 'Not-IS' to represent its antonym or synthetic 
other.  Whether Essence "negates" this other or simply contains it in its 
absolute potentialilty is an esoteric matter for the speculators.  That 
'Not-is' is fundamental to creation, however, cannot be denied.  Difference 
cannot exist without it, whether it's the difference between you and me, 
between patterns, or between now and then.  Where there is "presence" there 
is also "absence".  The most characteristic attribute of existence is that 
it is differentiated -- an attribute that we have no justification for 
imputing to the essential Source.

Try plugging this "little piece" into your ontology, Mark, and see how well 
it fits.

Potentially yours,
Ham