Hi all,

SOM - mind and matter, it's more than a thinking convention; we have no
choice but to act as if it's so - just try pretending the wall isn't there
and try to walk through it, you can't.

-Peter

2008/7/29 Ham Priday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> Greetings, Platt --
>
>  Since you mentioned my name . . .
>>
>> I would say that UNLESS Value can be cognitively abstracted
>> in its pure form, we could not tell any difference between good
>> and bad, right and wrong. Cognitively, any differentiation
>> presupposes a unitary whole -- or in plain English, logically you
>> can' t have many without one.
>>
>> I don't understand why you separate Marsha, me, yourself or
>> anyone else from the universe, as if she, me, you and everyone
>> else isn't an integral product and part of the universe.
>>
>
> Your "plain English" statement is quite correct.  Everything comes from
> one. Diversity is actually a negation or "reduction" of the unitary whole,
> rather than something "added" to it.  That's why, metaphysically speaking,
> the individual self cannot be a "part" of the whole.  That would invalidate
> the unity principle.  We are parts of the universe, of course.  But, unlike
> the universe, Essence is indivisible.  Therefore, subjective awareness is no
> more essential than objective beingness is, and values are relational, like
> everything else in existence.
>
> You'll recall my definition of the individual subject as the "being-aware"
> dichotomy.  (It's a dichotomy because the contingencies are mutually
> dependent; one cannot exist without the other.)  But Essence is a unitary
> whole which has no other.  The appearance of otherness is created by the
> negational power of Essence.  In my creation hypothesis, I use the analogy
> of the diameter inscribed in a circle to divide it into two semicircles.
> That imaginary line is nothingness, and the "creation" of two from one is
> actually a negation.  The principle of negation not only accounts for the
> separaion of sensibility from being, but it's how we delineate every thing
> and event in experience.  You could say that all otherness is an illusion,
> since from the perspective of Essence there is no other.  (re: Cusa's first
> principle)
>
> How does value figure into this scheme?  Selfness is sensibility divided
> from Essence.
> Sensibility is what perceives, knows, feels, and desires for itself,
> relative to the other.
> It is the pre-intellectual (non-cognitive) awareness of the other's value,
> but not its essence.  (There's your "pure abstracted" Value, Platt.)  But
> the human individual is a conscious organism, a being-aware, and, as such,
> its sensibility is mediated by organic receptors and the organizing
> faculties of the cerebrum.  That's why, like everything that exists, value
> is experienced differentially -- morally, esthetically, qualitatively, etc,
> -- and within a range from excellent or most desirable to poor or least
> desirable.  It is this differentiation of value which makes free choice and
> morality possible.
>
>  To me the universe not only has value to us, but values itself
>> through us. Indeed there is no difference, only thinking makes it so.
>>
>
> The universe represents our value sensibility to Essence.  It is Essence
> which "values itself through us".  Yes, if we stopped thinking there would
> be no difference.  There would also be no value, no experience, no
> being-in-the-universe for you or me.  Please don't get me wrong ... we need
> the SOM perspective if we are to participate effectively in this relational
> world.  It would be imbecilic to go around shouting "We're deceived --
>  reality is only an illusion!"  At the same time, once we realize this
> truth, it does not profit us to ignore it.
>
> Cheers and best wishes,
> Ham
>
>
>
> 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/
>
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/

Reply via email to