[MD] The hard question.

[Ham Priday]

Mark --

> Peace Ham, this is a philosophical discussion.  If I misinterpret you,
> it is my mistake.  However, it is also my nature to point out
> inconsistencies in what you present, and try to present my system
> in the best way I know how.

The persistence of your views is tiring sometimes, Mark.  It is somewhat 
disappointing to me, but I'm not offended.  The questions come easily.  It's 
the answers that are hard.  Explanations must be conveyed in words and 
analogies that are inimical to ontological concepts.

> My comment on existentialism may have been misplaced, and I am
> no scholar on the subject.  Such comment may have been a gut
> reaction due to conversations with fellow philosophers who expound
> what they claim to be existentialist beliefs.  I am a fan of the writings
> of Søren Kierkegaard and do not appreciate the other existentialists
> (except Camus, if he is indeed one), as much as perhaps I could.

I have read Kierkegaard, a very thoughtful philosopher whose existentalism 
is primarily of a Christian nature.  Camus is more a playwright than a 
philosopher, and his views echo those of Sartre.  But let's dispense with 
the labels and skip to some of the  barriers that divide us.  For example, 
you said:

> A photon has the same beingness as man.  This elevates the photon
> to the level of man and is not simply some occurrence without will.

I don't see Will as an operand in a photon's behavior, unless it's the will 
of the observer.  Particles, liquids and objects move and relate in 
accordance with the laws of Nature which, as you point out, provide a 
consistent framework for existential events.  It is my guess that these 
physical laws are imbued in our sensed Value and  conferred to existents in 
the course of our experience.  In any case, "will" or intent on the part of 
the object is a romantic notion that has no logical justification.

> I cannot envision a system in which a "creator" favors man above all else,
> I see no proof of this.  It is the incidental nature of value that does 
> not
> quite fit into Essentialism, it seems to me.  You seem to be taking a 
> leap.
>
> I see man as being essentially similar to all other beingness, each in
> their own temporary way.  What we ascribe to man should be ascribed
> to all.  We cannot create an imaginary line separating man.  It is a
> continual flux of transformation, of water from the same source. I have
> had discussions with professed existentialists where a creator exists;
> this is simple cause and effect paradigm since certainly all "this"
> came from somewhere.

So you don't regard man as a special creation with valuistic and 
intellectual capabilities that are unique within the animal kingdom. 
Frankly, I don't know how to overcome this hurdle.  It's like trying to 
explain the function of a prism to a color-blind person.  Do you concede 
that human intelligence is far superior to any other known species?  This 
would at least indicate that man has evolved to a higher level of competence 
than his fellow creatures, (possibly supporting the view that he might have 
a special, if not unique, role in existence).

> I do not see any struggling to survive chaos, I see that as evolutionary
> existentialism, which I complain is an insufficient paradigm, and 
> explain[s]
> nothing except to put us at the top of the heap, under the command
> of the God of the environment.  As I see it, we ARE the environment,
> not separate from it.  This notion of separation stems from Aristotelian
> classification which seems to have become our reality.  By conceptually
> separating everything into classes, we have explained nothing, only
> grouped things by appearance or concept.  This is the same grouping
> we perform when creating constellations.  It is useful but superficial.

I have no quarrel with the idea that organically we are all part of the 
evolutionary process, although I don't regard man as equivalent to his 
environment.  However, I do
see man overcoming the limitations of his biological nature and adapting the 
environment to serve his ever greater inventive needs.  Do you purposely 
disregard man's social and technological progress over the millennia, or do 
you consider such achievements mere happenstance?

[Ham previously]:
>> If "seeking to be better" is your idea of a moral universe, count me out.
>> I seek the perfection of Absolute Oneness, not a finite quality that
>> evolves to betterness.  I can't experience it, and certainly can't attain 
>> it.
>> But it is the source of all that I value in existence which connects me
>> with Essence.

[Mark]:
> If the Absolute Oneness is already complete, what are we seeking?
> If we are ejected from this oneness, what is the purpose therein?
> I have asked you time and again for a conceptual reason for this ejection
> from the Garden of Eden.  Are we all born sinners and need to atone?
> It all sounds like some kind of game.  That it could be a game is fine
> by me, but at least explain it as such.

Absolute Oneness is completed (perfected) by the extrinsic, autonomous 
sensibility to its Value provided by its negated agents.  It is this Value 
which draws us all to Essence and to which we seek to identify ourselves.  I 
view this as a reciprocal bonding between the absolute and relational modes 
of Essence.  The only "sin" is the failure to make this connection for 
ourself or our prevention of another person doing so.  The "end game" (if 
you want to call it that) is redemption of our lost value rather than 
atonement for our sins.

> If you have no interest in seeking to be better, then I can understand
> your dismay at my saying that such "golden rule" is purposeful.  We
> are each finite, and our union in this effort forms the spirit of the
> universe.  If we seek to be better, then why not everything?  What is
> it about man that makes him/her different from all of creation?

I'm not sure what "better" means in the context of "seeking".  Certainly I 
want to better myself by acquiring knowledge, discovering goodness, 
experiencing joy and contentment, and (hopefully) becoming a wiser person in 
the process.  While these are virtues that I value highly, I can't imagine a 
non-human being, organism, or object seeking the "better itself" in this 
way.  Do you not acknowledge this kind of value-seeking as a distinctly 
human goal?

> As far as I can tell by your negation of the Whole, your ontology
> claims that you are an expression (negation) of the whole.
> How do you resolve the notion of robotics there?

The Whole (Absolute Essence) is not negated; it is "negational" in 
potentiality.
It is the power of negation which creates or actualizes the "otherness" that 
we call existence.  A cognizant agent that can exercise its freedom 
autonomously is not a robot, Mark, and your allusion to "other possible 
options" for ontology has me mystified.  Can you provide an example or two?

> Of course life is full of meaning, but such meaning is not exclusive
> to us, why should it be?   So far as an ant is concerned, we are
> simply a mechanistic force of nature.  Do you think such ant cares or
> finds any meaning in the pursuits of man?

"Should be" and "ought to be" are dangerous phrases to throw around when you 
don't have access to cosmic truth.  Why assume that an ant has the capacity 
to care about any meaning than its own survival?   On the other hand, why 
reject the idea that amoebas, ants, and monkeys are "stepping stones" in the 
evolution of life forms to their culmination in man?

You've posed far too many questions for me to answer in a single posting, so 
I'll get to the rest of them in follow-up messages.

Thanks again for challenging me, Mark.

And enjoy the Memorial Day weekend,
Ham