[MD] The MOQ difference

[Ham Priday]

Hi there, Mark --


> If indeed our subjective awareness is confined to the logical
> mind, then we are forming a construct of what appears to us
> through the various senses which has meaning to us.  And
> although the border of such a thing is fuzzy, we can describe
> that as other.  I have asked (many moons ago) where the
> other/self boundary is.  As a biochemist, I know that we
> change every molecule in our bodies regularly.  So we are
> left with self as Presence, so to speak. ...

I didn't know you were a biochemist.  So is my oldest friend who recently 
retired as a college professor in Spartanburg, SC.  I only managed to earn a 
B.S. in biology/chemistry as a wayward pre-med student.  What is a 
bioelectrochemist, by the way?   That's a new one for me.

> So, where does the subjective begin?  At the root of it, I can
> only say that it doesn't.  There are those who believe that it is
> the thought process, but that certainly hasn't worked for me,
> since there is so much going on that is personal, outside the
> thought process.

Analogies are useful.  I like to think of the Self as a mirror reflecting 
the light of Essence in fragments that we experience valuistically in 
space/time.  That makes us "value detectors" with no essence of our own 
other than what we sense valuistically as beingness.

> So, here is where Quality comes in.  Most of my interpretation
> still comes from ZMM.  If it is defined as the pre-intellectual
> awareness, which then gets converted to thought, then that is
> where I have to look.  Unfortunately, while the intellect may
> provide a path, it does not provide the knowing.  I understand
> the negation of essence in a knowing way, but it does not work
> for me intellectually.  Yes, I have read Heidegger, and his
> sudden creation of nouns leaves me lacking, because he then
> goes on [to] define them teleologically.  But, I am slow sometimes.

You're not slow at all, Mark.  Heidegger is almost as incomprehensible as 
Sartre.  In fact, I think you've got it right on.  We're not talking 
biochemistry here, but metaphysics.  Knowing or cognition is what I call 
"proprietary sensibility", and it is a differentiated reflection of the 
essential Source.  Organic being is of course the existential vehicle for 
this finitely defracted reflection, but sensibility itself is essential and 
ubiquitous, although divided by nothingness in the human perspective of 
reality.

To borrow from a biblical phrase, we know in part what Essence is 
absolutely.  Whatever is "known in part" is a negation of the Absolute 
Source which is indivisible.  That's why "nothingness" logically must be the 
existential "divider" -- in this case, the negate or cognitive self.  But 
since Essence is indivisible, this finite reflection that is the basis of 
our experience is fleeting and illusory, except for the Value (Quality?) of 
which its images are constructed.

Does this add any insight to your interpretation, Mark?

Thanks for the compliments regarding my website which I'm attempting to 
accommodate to the new-fangled browsers.

Essentially yours,
Ham