On Thursday 18 September 2008 1:05 PM Ham answers Joe: [Ham] The individual is a being-aware. Awareness is not "collective" but is proprietary to the individual. The object of awareness is what the individual experiences. But the sentient individual never "rises above individuated awareness". [Joe] Being-aware seems to be your doctrine. How does it apply to an individual stone? [Ham] In other words, we each construct our own universe from the value(s) of which we are sensible. And, since value is derived from a common source (Essence), the quantitative properties of existence are the same for all. [Joe] As a plumber for many years I had to get a license or permit from the State, County or City to work at my profession. I did not construct my own license. I do not know from whom I would get a permit to try to construct a universe from values. [Ham} I'm not sure I can convince you, but it doesn't stop me from trying. [Joe] What am I to you? I think you are a year older than I am so I suppose I have to respect my elders. Unfortunately I learned disrespect at an early age! I am sorry! [Ham] For example, I might ask you if there is such a thing as unrealized Quality. If not, then quality is an attribute of man's awareness rather than the essence of reality. [Joe] ³unrealized Quality² might not be a thing but a Quality. Yes, I think evolution is valuable over time. Do you deny the existence of Quality? I guess you are not a Quality person. To each his own! [Ham] Also, my understanding is that are four levels in the MoQ: Inorganic, Organic, Social, and Intellectual. What are the extra three? [Joe] I am a singer. I model evolution according to an analogy to the intervals of the musical octave. [Ham] And what do they have to do with "revelation"? [Joe] You brought it up with a quote of ³seeing through a glass darkly² from the bible. [Ham] How you categorize existence matters less to me than how you perceive it. Is existence your ultimate reality, or is it derived from a primary source? [Joe] It was my opinion that an order in existence was the basis of my perception of existence. I concluded that Scripture was the basis of your perception of existence. [Ham] If the appearance of existential phenomena is experience, then isn't their apparent evolution a result of the observer's temporal mode of experience? [Joe] I would argue that their apparent evolution is an apparent order in existence. The experience of the appearance of existential phenomena is my experience of reality. Joe
On 9/18/08 1:05 PM, "Ham Priday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings, Joseph -- > > >> You ask Bo: "Do you believe that this ordered universe, >> 'the metaphysical equivalent to Newton's physical revolution', >> exists independently of its realization by the cognizant mind? >> In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness?" >> >> You tell Marsha: "It is existence which is differentiated and >> transient." And you give the reason for the affirmation: >> "And this is because the locus of subjective experience -- >> individuated awareness -- is detached from the essential >> source, thus limited in its perspective." >> >> I ask you Ham, How does an individual sentient rise above >> individuated awareness? Your answer is revelation describes >> the essential source by analogy. In biblical terms, we "see >> through a glass, darkly." > > The individual is a being-aware. Awareness is not "collective" but is > proprietary to the individual. The object of awareness is what the > individual experiences. But the sentient individual never "rises above > individuated awareness". In other words, we each construct our own universe > from the value(s) of which we are sensible. And, since value is derived > from a common source (Essence), the quantitative properties of existence are > the same for all. > >> IMO DQ is undefined in that it acknowledges an evolution >> in existence of seven levels. That is not in revelation. God >> is in revelation! Does God evolve? I surmise your answer >> is NO! and your have the source for "essence". This is your >> belief system. Why do you feel you can convince me >> (a member of MOQ_discuss) that your belief is more real >> than a DQ/SQ metaphysics? > > I'm not sure I can convince you, but it doesn't stop me from trying. For > example, I might ask you if there is such a thing as unrealized Quality. If > not, then quality is an attribute of man's awareness rather than the essence > of reality. > > Also, my understanding is that are four levels in the MoQ: Inorganic, > Organic, Social, and Intellectual. What are the extra three? And what do > they have to do with "revelation"? How you categorize existence matters > less to me than how you perceive it. Is existence your ultimate reality, or > is it derived from a primary source? If the appearance of existential > phenomena is experience, then isn't their apparent evolution a result of the > observer's temporal mode of experience? > > Regards, > 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/
