[MD] Indeterminism

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

To pick up where I left off yesterday . . .


[Mark]:
> Yes, I am fine with your "sensible subject"; however, one cannot
> separate the material from the spiritual.  They are one and the same.
> Any division is purely for rhetorical purposes of illumination.  The
> “thread which connects the pearls of reincarnation” is indeed an
> illuminating concept since it explains much more than its alternatives
> such as a handful of loose pearls being tossed into this world.  The
> chain of existence cannot be broken and divided into little pieces
> and analyzed separately.  Part of that chain is our physical presence.
> The sensible subject without apparati is somewhat meaningless in
> practice.  Any holographic projection requires a source, energy,
> and a place for the hologram.  Without these three, there is no
> apparition. The source defines the picture, which I would assume
> is Essence in your ontology.  The energy is Value, and the picture
> forms within the Sensible Subject.  All three of these, while
> conceptually independent are pragmatically dependent.  The same
> can be said for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (just thought
> I would inject some Christianity to annoy some unrepentant sinners
> reading this).

It's probably more accurate to say that materiality is a "mode of 
spirituality" than that they are separate.  But as my ontology IS Essence, 
not "spirit", this modality (physical existence) is hardly what one would 
describe as ephemeral or "holographic".  Remember, we're talking about Being 
here -- the "solidity" or concreteness of experienced phenomena which, while 
not "Reality" in the metaphysical sense, is nonetheless very real to us.

> What if the subjective Self is contained in things other than the
> human variety?  How does such an idea provide more meaning the
> universe in general?  If indeed we are searching for meaning, then it
> behooves us not to shut doors which may lead to astonishment (or
> enlightenment I you want).  What system is your ontology contained
> within?  Is it one of human thought, or does it encompass human
> thought and thus drive it?  Are you providing a human interpretation
> of reality, or does reality provide your interpretation?  If you
> indeed create your reality and it is all pervading for your sensible
> self, how does one then turn around and view it from a distance?
> While subjectivism is indeed a mode of thought, objectivism must also
> exist to bring subjectivism into being. . . .

I am not a subjectivist but an essentialist, so we're not comparing 
subjectivism and objectivism in the traditional way.  For me everything is a 
form or mode of Essence.  Beingness is the "positive" contingency of 
Nothingness in the mode of existence.  What we "create" (better to say 
"actualize") as subjective existents (agents) is constructed of 
being/nothingness and assumes the form and properties that represent our 
particular value perspective.

> In the same way, anthropocentrism must exist within a larger context.
> I have provided some of that context in the form of concepts.  In my
> quest for a position of humility, I raise all else to the level of respect 
> I hold
> for you and me.

Thanks, Mark, and I intend to honor that respect.  Now to your most recent 
post.

[Mark on 10/12]:
> Yes, the rebellion against anything smacking of theism certainly
> leaves a lot out of life's wonder and converts everything into a
> "science", which in my opinion is not metaphysics being used to its
> fullest potential.
>
> I use the word tautology to imply that a statement of fact is creating
> the very premises that it is based on.
> "Blue is my favorite color"
> "Why?"
> "Because it is Blue."
>
> "Things evolve towards betterness"
> "Why?"
> "Because things are better now".
>
> "The fittest survive"
> "Why?
> "Because what we have now is more fit". ...

Exactly.  But I do think we're beyond tautology in laying out this ontology.

> As I understand teleology, it is the extrapolation of the appearance
> to an underlying phenomenon.  This is a leap of faith since such
> extrapolation is missing a link.  I have no problem with teleology so
> long as it is understood for what it is.  I like your use below which
> I will comment on.  The nihilist you speak of, would very readily
> claim that he/she can create something him/herself.  Yet, any
> extrapolation of such a concept is prohibited.  This is the Ego
> speaking.

I see what you're getting at.  However, subjective actualization does not 
create an "egotistical fantasy" because we are limited to the teleology 
(parameters) of the Master Plan that are embedded in Essential Value.  This 
encompasses the laws and principles of physics, biology, logic, and 
relativity which guide evolution and provide a universal ground and reliable 
environment for the subjective agent.  In other words, the quantitative and 
dynamic structure of existential reality is "predetermined" so that all 
agents relate to the same universal pattern.  The specific "qualities" of 
this pattern -- its esthetic, emotional, moral, and intellectual values --  
are left for the free agent to realize.  (And by "realize" I mean 
"actualize".)

In closing, I would say that the "leap of faith" you allude to is belief in 
a higher order of reality than Empiricism, radical or otherwise.  Neither 
Subjectivism nor Objectivism can be the final answer, and Being itself 
presupposes a.primary source.  By whatever name you choose to call this 
ultimate essence, it must both transcend and encompass the existential 
reality we all take for granted.

Does this ontology (epistemology?) tie up the loose ends of our respective 
worldviews?  How close do you think we are to resolving our differences at 
this juncture?

In the quest for mutual understanding,
Ham