Ron --
> All that being said, you simply confirm Craig's > b) something always existed. > Since source is absolute, it always is, correct? Ham: The source (Essence) IS eternally and absolutely. But the predicate IS is not the same as "exists" in my vernacular. What exists is a conscious impression of things happening within a space/time system. It's an impression formed by the human intellect from the sense of value converted to experience. Whether or not the universe "always existed" is a mute question, since nothing would exist in the absence of subjective experience. Ron: How do you escape the problem of solipsism? How do you free yourself Of the charge of everything is generated by your subjective experience and yours alone? Ron: > Essentialism fosters the concept of separateness and the inability of > reconciling this in our experience. Talk about nihilism, it's a nihilist > tease! Life has meaning! Sorry But you'll never experience it. Talk > about depressing. Ham: Essentialism acknowledges that life in the differentiated mode of existence is a dichotomy of proprietary awareness and objective beingness. The MoQ does not. Ron; No because it says that dichotomy really does not exist, it is a function Of our social logic and reasoning. Ham: Essentialism gives the individual autonomy (freedom of choice) in a relational world of otherness. The MoQ does not. Ron: It gives the individual greater freedom by not limiting it to A dichotomy. Ham: Essentialism fosters the concept that human subjectivity (value-sensibility) is the inviolable union of the individual with the source of creation, that each individual ultimately reclaims the value lost to him in creation. What is nihilistic about that? Ron: Forgive me for not fully understanding your meaning, I thought you meant union was not to be achieved through value sensibility, that Essent was estranged from human subjectivity that this separateness in fact creates Our awareness. How does this fit in with spiritual meaning? Ham: The MoQ fosters the notion that human beings are totally the product of inorganic, biological, and social levels, and that selfness is a myth. Where is the meaning of life explained in Pirsig's philosophy? Ron: The meaning of life is determined by the individual. For me personally, I get a great sense of well being knowing that it all lies in my own hands. > By choosing the logic of cause and effect, what's to settle at the term > "source" as "absolute"? in effect you are also casting a "mu" answer > by this explanation. The eternal cause. What caused the eternal cause? > The negation of nothing and otherness? What caused that? Ham: Only the intellectual creature perceives every phenomenon as having a prior "cause". Observing events sequentially and objects dimensionally is man's way of experiencing reality. Process seen in space/time is the mode of human experience. There is no such differentiation in Essence. What is absolute needs no "cause". Ron; Agree. > You address existence as dependent on value sensibility, how > does Essentialism account for inorganic matter, evolution, and > the Existence of reality and time independent of living organisms? Ham: This is the universal pattern that is created when value-sensibility is negated from Essence. We each share in the experience of this pattern, albeit with different value associations and from a unique space/time perspective. Ron; How did value sensibility begin? How did the universal pattern start? It clearly not always was. Please elaborate on this. Thank you very much for explaining 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
