Greetings, Will --
I would suggest that to those not trained in the art of metaphysical
logic, your proposal would sound very mystical, as you use the word.
The mere mention of essence and estrangement from the source
has mystical implications. In the same way, the description of reality
by mystics, as you example, are only magic to those not trained in the
art.
To suggest that the building blocks that you use are somehow more real
than those used by others, is entrapping yourself in a circular
self consistent logic that leaves much (if not most) out. To recognize
that the logic you use is based on mystical assumptions would be a
step up the ladder of understanding. However, it is impossible to
break out of such a cage if one doesn't even realize it exists.
It doesn't really concern me that my thesis may be taken as "mystical",
provided it is understood.
The notion that there is an underlying phenomenon termed Quality
that provides the driving force for reality is, in my mind, the height
of mysticism. While you and your audience may parlay easily in
such terms, and accept it as meaningful reality, it is simply a
convention. Meaningful only to those indoctrinated. To others it
is purely mystical. Those trained in other methods may appear mystical
to you.
I am mostly self-trained in metaphysical logic, which I don't regard as an
"art" but as an extension of classical logic. Mainly, I try to be
consistent and plausible, which is favored by logical construction.
If as you say, that there is a dynamic interaction between yourself
and other. It would be instructive to me to understand how you
differentiate between yourself and other. For example if you take
a sip of water, does that water become part of you? Let's say you
spit it out, is it temporarily part of you? Is it only part of you when
it enters your stomach, or your blood stream? Where does the
dynamic interaction begin? ...
Perhaps a better explanation of this dynamic interaction will help
me to understand what you are trying to describe.
I read about a fascinating experiment some years ago in which test subjects
were asked to
spit and then drink their own saliva. In every instance, the subjects
rejected the once-expelled saliva as no longer "part of them". Our
identification with the proprietary body is very strong, as it must be to
establish an integrated "being-aware". Technically, however, the biological
organism which we each identify as our "Self" is "being". Clothing,
glasses, and other accessories are generally recognized as external objects
"owned" by the subject. Despite the fact that we could not exist without
it, all being is otherness to the cognizant self. Self/Other is a mutally
dependent dichotomy.
When you ask if my ontology provides me with a sense of purpose,
I am led to think that the ontology is other, which is then giving me
something. Isn't the ontology part of me? Or is it separate, like
water quenching my thirst? I find the question meaningless.
Are the electrochemical activities in my brain part of me or are they
providing something to me?
Ontology is the core of one's philosophy, a theory or explanation of being
in the world -- its origin, relations and dynamics. It should encompass
(account for) all that exists, including the psychic self. We are all
beings, so we are most certainly a part of ontology. You had said "What my
ontology provides me, is a feeling of participation, reveling, and
awareness." That sounded commendable, although it seemed to be missing a
sense of purpose. (Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)
I have difficulty understanding Value. Is it how we feel?
Is it something separate from us, something that we are sensing
as an external force?
Is there a point where Value becomes part of us?
As value-sensible creatures, Value is what we share with the uncreated
source. I refer to it as "man's link to Essence" and its sensibility as
"the essence of man".) We can only experience value relationally, that is
to say, as responses to finite referents. Thus, emotional value affects how
you feel, moral value guides your behavior, esthetic value determines your
love for music and the arts, intellectual value shapes your worldview.
Perhaps the best way to understand value-sensibility is to think of it as
the interface between your Self and Other. What is your conscious attitude
toward the persons, objects and events in your experience? This is what I
call your "value complement", and it is different for each individual.
When you say that memory is a function of cognizant awareness,
does memory create awareness or does awareness create memory.
Are the two separate things? Or is memory one of the many things
that creates awareness. Without memory are we not aware?
Awareness is the cumulative apprehension (cognizance) of one's being in the
world which includes feelings, experiences, concepts, and desires, both
present and past. Memory "creates" awareness only insofar as we reflect on
past experience. I don't know if there is such a condition as "total
amnesia"; but if there is, and the patient is conscious, he would probably
be diagnosed as having a reduced state of awareness.
If cells are not subjective, at what point does subjectivity come in?
How many cells does it take to create subjectivity? If a cell does not
have will, then what is the force that makes it want to continue.
Is this different from that which makes an entire individual want to
survive. If a cell does not have value, what is it that allows it to
differentiate between a variety of "external" stimuli such as
electrolytes, hormones, heat, pressure, cause and effect?
I do not consider subjectivity a biological phenomenon. So, asking how many
cells does it take to create subjectivity makes no more sense than how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin. Cells and their living aggregates
reproduce and function according to biological and physical laws which are
the order of the universe. The instinct to survive, as exhibited by
reflexive action, is intrinsic to all living organisms through genetics and
does not require will or value discrimination.
It would be useful to get a better sense of your definitions of these
terms
so that I can better understand how this uncreated source exists
separate from us. If one is estranged and cannot sense this uncreated
source, what evidence is there that it exists? If it is simply used to
explain
a psychological state of mind? There are thousands of ways to do that,
each with its own effect.
I accept Cusa's definition for the uncreated source as the 'Not-other'.
Essence does not "exist separate from us," although individual creatures are
"estranged" from the Absolute Whole. You might think of existence as a
finite illusion or "differentiated appearance" of Essence. We do sense the
source as Value, however, as I stated above.
With your final statement "Essence is the antithesis of Difference,
the 'not-other' that is complete in itself." I am led to think that such
essence must be part of us, otherwise it would be other, and not
complete in itself. I get a little confused by there being an essence
which is somehow separate.
Will, I suggest you review the thesis page of my website at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm. There is a glossary of terms in the
appendix at the bottom of this page. This should help you get a better
handle on my ontology. While you're there, you might enjoy this week's
Values Page column at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm which is an aesthetic
argument for the existence of God (or Essence).
Happy reading!
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/
