[MD] Betterness - 4 levels of!

[118]

>
> Hi Ham,
>
> Back to our conversation which is my attempt to provide myself an
> understanding of your ontology, and perhaps further my own within my brain.
>  Some interactive comments below.
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> [Ham]
>>
>> Mark, what I call "finitude" is the world we live in.  It's a
>> fractionated, individuated, multi-level space/time world where creatures,
>> plants, and a diversity of things emerge, undergo cause-and-effect
>> changes, and then return to the dust from whence they came.  Since natural
>> phenomena are programmed by genetics and the forces of nature, it seems
>> reasonable for the Darwinists to dismiss Intelligent Design is just an
>> argument from ignorance, i.e., plugging a Creator into the gaps of
>> scientific understanding.
>>
>
> [Mark]
> Yes, I see the Darwinist view as yet another view.  It certainly has strong
> support which would indicate that we are designed to think along those
> lines.  Birth, growth, and death obviously help and can be extrapolated the
> world as a whole.  Being at the top of evolution is also a strong enforcer.
>  Darwinists would claim that Nature is the creator, I am fine with that.
>  The impersonal sense of such Nature does not ring true since I interact
> personally and it is difficult to separate myself from all else.  In a way,
> your personal negation does that kind of separation, in my interpretation,
> and therefore requires some rethinking on my part to bring it in.
>
>>
>> [Ham]
>
> But [to paraphrase a flyer just received from Human Events], as William
>> Dembski and Jonathan Witt argue in their new book on the subject, the ID
>> theory is based on a host of discoveries from biology to astronomy about
>> what scientists DO know.  Whereas conclusions reached by the scientific
>> method are dependable because they can be falsified, Darwinism is the
>> lynchpin of philosophical materialism which is deeply entrenched in today's
>> academic, legal and media establishment.  ID in contrast, follows the
>> evidence wherever it leads -- even if it points to a Creator.  (For example,
>> the authors show that it's mathematically impossible for even the simplest
>> creature to evolve through "random variation", given the limits of time and
>> space in the universe.)
>>
>
> [Mark]
> I agree with the flyer by what you have presented.  Of course my
> interpretation of ID is as convoluted as anyones.  The Darwinist notion of
> evolution requires a separation of species from the selection process.  In
> this way, intelligence can be somehow isolated to the human race and not be
> part of the whole.  If one uses simple definitions of intelligence, it is
> hard to isolated it to the way we, simply as humans, are.  ID implies a
> plan, at least at the beginning.  It is quite possible that such a plan took
> a life of its own (yes, pun), but even this kind of reasoning is not
> necessary to melt ID and Darwinism together.  This whole notion of
> randomness does not hold together as a statistical model because of our
> interaction with it.  The observer must be separated from that measured for
> randomness to be brought in.
>
>>
>> [Ham]
>
> Now, you may consider evolution "an illusion", an effect of Quality" or
>> "the natural progression of a moral universe"; but such explanations don't
>> account for the origin of this process or its reason for being.  Since every
>> "being" is delineated or limited in space and time, it is fallacious to
>> regard Being -- even in its "supreme" form -- as the ultimate reality.  And,
>> since Quality and Morality simply don't exist without man's sensibility and
>> reason, I conceptualize existence as that phase or mode of Essence whereby
>> its Value is incrementally realized by a free agent.  My paradigm here is
>> that of the individual self looking at its Absolute Source from the
>> "outside", as it were, and creating an objective reality to represent the
>> value realized.
>>
>
> [Mark]
> OK, I kind of get that.  It is the break in continuity that I have trouble
> with.  I would then qualify Being as that which witnesses through this
> particular window, but is no different from such ultimate reality.  Of
> course we do not remember anything before birth (at least I don't) so such a
> break is intuitive, but may be more a function of memory.  I would agree,
> that in this incarnation we can say that it appears that we are
> differentiating whereas before we were not.  Your notion of value realized
> is similar to mine, except perhaps in a critical point where I state that
> such value already exists and we are experiencing it.  But this can be
> reified with yours perhaps through some logical link.
>
>>
>> Value-sensibility is as close to physical non-existence (nothingness) as
>> any known entity can be; yet the Self is the cognitive locus of all that
>> exists. That's why I put so much emphasis on "nothingness" as the antithesis
>> of Essence, and why I attribute its actualization to a "negational" Source.
>> Lastly, inasmuch as Sensibility and Value are both derived from Essence, it
>> logically follows that their experiential counterparts are the individual's
>> link to the Absolute.
>>
>
> [Mark]
> What you say about the link makes sense to me in an objective way.  The
> trick for me is to create the subjective sense.  The difference could be
> indeed subtle but quite remarkable at the same time. Could you explain what
> you mean by the experiential counterparts (again)?
>
>>
>> Hope the above is a less confusing and somewhat more illuminating
>> synopisis of Essentialism.
>>
>> Cheers and warm regards,
>> Ham
>>
>
> [Mark]
> How about this analogy?  There is a cake and an eater.  When the cake
> enters the mouth, the sense of taste is realized through the negation of the
> absence of taste.  The taste existed all along, but required its
> realization.
>
> Cheers to you,
> 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
>>
>
>