[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Tim (and Mark who may be listening in) --

> No, I meant ignostic, with an 'i'; I was mainly trying to introduce
> it into the mix.  It is a term for one who does not recognize the
> questions about theism unless things are nailed down with definitions.

Well, if we need another word, I suppose I'd settle for "ignostic".

> Anyway, I think the similarities between quality and 'something',
> and between morality and justice, show why I was so smitten
> with Lila.

Quality to me means the worth or character of an observed person, thing, or 
event.  This business of treating Quality as a noun is metaphysically 
useless, unless you believe that quality can stand by itself, which it 
can't.  Like Value, Quality doesn't exist unless it is realized, and it is 
always realized by the observing subject.  Unrealized value is an oxymoron. 
The process of realizing value is called "sensibility".  In my epistemology, 
the essence of selfness is value-sensibility, and it is experience that 
constructs sensible value into the objects and events of our world.

> Ham, the main thing I want to challenge: "...because it is delineated by
> nothingness...".  For me, "nothing" has no place, because if it did, it
> would be 'something'.  So, I don't really know what you mean here.  On
> the other hand, I thought you captured this thought by saying "Essence
> has no 'other'".  Anyway, an explanation might be helpful.
>
> I don't know if "essence" imprints any flavor to 'something'; I prefer
> 'something', concrete but undifferentiated, but perhaps all 'essence'
> implies is: essential.  Also, in my thinking, the 'essence' which "has
> no other", might have to give something of itself for us to be here.
> "Something is" seems to be, to the best of my capacity, true absolutely.

I had this same problem with Mark, which is why I didn't mention "negation" 
in my last post.  Perhaps, if I explain it simply enough, I can make a good 
case for it.

In the traditional (religious) sense, we envisioned creation as something 
"added to" the Creator.  Thus, when God created man, suddenly there was a 
new entity existing alongside the Creator.  We explained Adam as the son or 
servant of God.  Likewise, every created thing is an "other" to God, and 
they are all assumed to be "additions" to God's universe.

But, if the Creator is absolute (total "IS-ness", as Meister Eckhart 
described it), there can be no other beside it.  What is already absolute 
cannot be extended.  Cusanus recognized this logic in the 15th century.  He 
defined God as the "Not-other".  "The first principle cannot be other, 
either than an other or than nothing, and likewise is not opposed to 
anything."  How, then, can the universe and everything in it come into 
being?

Considered metaphysically, existence is constituted of Beingness, 
Nothingness, and Sensibility.  Nothingness is a negate which doesn't exist 
but is still functional in the triad.  According to the law of 
contradiction, if one element of the triad stands alone, the other two 
elements are in contradictory identity.  Thus, if Nothingness is negated 
from Essence, Beingness and Sensibility are left as the contradictory 
"essents".   This forms a subject/object duality in which Being is made 
sensible as the negated subject's awareness of an objective essent  - 
"otherness".

In other words, you and your reality are negated (i.e., excluded) from the 
absolute source.  From the perspective of Essence, anything that "exists" is 
transitory and finite, and finitude has no place in the Absolute.  That's 
why some here say that the physical universe is "illusory".  Now, Mr. Pirsig 
has tried to circumvent this paradox by positing Quality (DQ) as the primary 
source which divides into "static patterns' that we recognize as subjects 
and objects.  The power to divide is assumed to be the "dynamic nature" of 
Quality.  But that still leaves us with an illusion without an ontogeny or 
cause.

The rationale for negation is quite simply that any created thing is a 
lesser entity than the whole.  Since the objects of creation are secondary 
and inferior to the undifferentiated whole, they can arise only by negation 
of the whole. There is but one plausible hypothesis to account for the 
creation of a dynamic, multiplistic universe from a constant, monistic 
source: Essence is negational.  Because Essence is absolute and ubiquitous, 
there is no other within or beside it.  Therefore, in order to create an 
other, it "invents" one by negation.  Like the mountain climber who has 
ascended to the highest summit and for whom further progress can only be 
descent, Absolute Essence is the only entity that creates by "exclusion". 
The potential for actualizing the appearance of contrariety (difference) is 
innate in its Oneness.  And because negation is the potentiality of Essence, 
which itself is primary, the "cause" and the "source" of creation are one.

> This guy that Mark suggested, J. Kaipayil (relationalism.org), suggests
> that reality is fundamentally unitary and plural at the same time.  I
> think we might all be in agreement here.  Perhaps it is that I am trying
> to see why it MUST BE plural by focussing on the aspect of unity, while
> you, might, maybe?, bee thinking of the simplest plural: as essence
> (essential).  If this is so, I like the terminology - from that
> perspective.

Tim, I don't see how aything can be both unitary and pluralistic at ANY 
time.  But I CAN see how Difference can derive plurality from unity, if we 
allow that Existence is a different mode of reality than Essence.  If, by 
negating nothingness, Essence causes a split or cleavage to appear to an 
"other", we have a metaphysical basis for creation.  I maintain that the 
cosmic split (division) is between Sensibility and Otherness, that 
Sensibility/Otherness is the primary dichotomy from which all differentiated 
phenomena (essents) are made aware.

> I came here having a problem with pirsig's 'Quality'.  For one, it
> seemed too simple to produce contradiction, theoretically.  For two,
> even though he asserted that quality was synonymous with morality,
> we have no way of determining these things objectively, so, for
> instance, when there is contradiction in real life, one can side with
> what some would call high quality activities, while others call them
> criminal, sinful, etc.: criminal syndicates, corrupt schemes,
> assassinations, etc. and etc.  The levels don't provide a means to
> distinguish immoral from moral quality, but I won't rehash this.

Morality is a wholly separate issue, which I'll be happy to explore with you 
at a later time.  Suffice it to say here that the only essential attributes 
of the Absolute Source that we can know are Sensibility and Value.  Our 
entire finite world is an intellectual construct of these attributes.

Has my creation hypothesis helped you to understand the function of 
negation, Tim?   Do you at least see that because the subjective self cannot 
be quantified, localized, or directly observed, it is not an "existent" but 
a "negate" or nothingness that is totally dependent on the otherness 
(beingness) which sustains it?

Appreciate your interest,
Ham