On 12/06/09, at 8:01 AM, Arlo writes --
[Ham, previously]
In summary, I maintain that it is a moral travesty to dismiss or reject
the
discriminative and rational faculties with which human beings are uniquely
endowed.
[Arlo]
Prior to this, you deny the source of this "unique endowment" as either
biological (genetics) or social (enculturation). So I ask you, again,
where
does this "unique endowment" come from?
Biology is a name we have given to the study of cellular mechanisms that are
perceived to form living organisms. Social is the name we have given to
interrelational activities involving individuals identified with a specific
group or community. Of the two names, Biology (i.e., cell formation
following genetic patterns) can be considered a "process" of creation. The
cognitive faculties of man, however, are not created by cell formation or
social interraction.
Let me rephrase. I assume that at some point, let's call it Point A, this
"unique endowment" did not exist within the "cosmos". At a latter point,
let's call it Point B, it does exist within the "cosmos". What changed
between Points A and B that accounts for the appearance of this
"unique endowment"?
Do you want the "short answer" or the "long answer"? The short answer is
that man's unique endowment comes from Essence. Following is the long
answer.
When you cite reference points in time you are invoking causality, which is
the way humans intellectualize process or change observed a relational
system. Phrases like "come from" and "change to" reflect causal thinking.
Existence is perceived as a cause-and-effect system, but the creative Source
is not. So, while one may say that the capacity for conscious perception
and intellection is made possible by a particular configuration of neurons
in the human body (as detemined by the process of genetic evolution), this
is a perceived "effect of causation" rather than the "primary source" or
genesis of conscious awareness. Empirical evidence focuses only on the
instrument of consciousness, not its essence.
Consciousness (sensibility) is not an 'existent'; that is, it cannot be
quantified, localized, or objectively observed. For that reason, I prefer
the term "essent" to designate derivatives of Essence which are non-existent
in the traditional sense, such as Awareness, Value, and Nothingness. As a
phenomenalist, I also regard existence in its totality (the cosmos) to be
the product of ("actualized by") experience. Speaking metaphysically,
essents are primary to existents which are actualized from essential Value.
Actualization is secondary to creation, which means that in my ontogeny
there is only one Creation -- the negation of differentiated existence from
Absolute Essence.
In other words, the time/space dynamics of evolution and the existential
entities that appear to the cognizant observer are experiential phenomena.
While this ontogeny has little practical value for those who put their stock
and trade in physical reality, I have found it quite useful in understanding
metaphysical reality.
I know this won't satisfy you, Arlo, but creation is infinitely more than a
point A moving to a point B. (And so is biological evolution, by the way.)
Thanks for your query. I hope I've been helpful.
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/
