[MD] Thus spoke Lila

[118]

Hi Ham,

Yes, my ontology is one of movement.  If I was done, I'd explain it to
you.  I will explain where I am at after your last statements below:

[Ham]
> 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:
>
>> [Mark before]
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.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]

Well, this is where we differ then.  By my reckoning, beauty does
create art, love does create compassion towards other, and logic does
create math.  We express these things as a result, not as a creation.
So, to take the easiest example here, the presence of beauty results
in our differentiation between two objects of art.  Without beauty, we
would have no sense of liking one better than another.  So beauty
exists, we then assign this to objects.  We have the ability to
differentiate only because of the presence of Quality.  We may
differentiate differently, but that is a personal preference.  When I
state that Quality is what separates, it also means that it is what
creates.  Two apples are identical unless they are differentiated by
Quality.  We have no way of creating that Quality.

I realize that by your ontology, we do have the power to create Value.
 But, if so, where does this power come from?  How is it that we have
this ability?  This is similar to my question as to how do we negate
absolute essence?  The way I see it, is we look through a window and
observe beauty.  It is already there, otherwise this would be a cold
world that we need to warm up somehow.  I do not think we have that
kind of power.
>
[Ham]
> 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.

[Mark]
Yes, something certainly makes things different.  The question is
what?  We are presented with something, or two things, and we
differentiate between them.  I would simply say that we react to
Quality.  The only reason I would call it quality and not Is-ness is
that it exists as a spectrum, high to low if you want.  The relative
differentness of things is a function of how far they are pushed
apart.  We cannot do the separating, but we can interpret it.  In this
way, I would envision more of a continuity to the presence of things,
and not their absolute separateness by absence.  Indeed, Quality ebbs
and flows dynamically like waves.

Music may present a good example.  There is harmony and dissonance and
we interpret these in music.  Harmony in Quality represents something
that lasts, like a really good idea.  Dissonance doesn't last so long.
 This analogy has a few flaws, but there is certainly a propensity for
things to harmonize, like a planet circling a sun, or a great
religion, or a single raindrop, or getting into a zone while playing a
basketball game.  We get to experience all these things within and
without.
>
[Ham]
> Try plugging this "little piece" into your ontology, Mark, and see how well
> it fits.

[Mark]
I prefer your Essence and Nothingness.  Maybe I have gotten used to
it.  My interpretation of Eckhart may be a little different from
yours.  I have had visions of what he talks about, or at least my
interpretation of such.  Hard to put in words.  Feels like extreme
relief, or satisfaction, or something like that.  There is also a
silent humming that goes with it.  And, no drugs or anything, just
contemplation while alone.
>
Still yours,
Mark
>
>
> 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
>