that's not SOM. SOM is the DIVISION. the impassable chasm twixt the wall and me, hence schizo-reality but perception is a reciprocity between me and the phenomenal world - it is an event. there is no chasm, there is participation.
--- On Tue, 29/7/08, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Tit's > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Tuesday, 29 July, 2008, 9:22 PM > 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/ Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search. www.yahoo7.com.au/search 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/
