On 12/6/09 4:05 PM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
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.
Hi Ham and all,
To deny existence to something experienced by all sentient beings is to talk
in circles. ³Nothing² is the only logical non-existent in our language. In
your criteria for existence ³quality² is conspicuously absent while
³quantity² holds the first place. This places mathematics as the only
logical discipline. Mathematics has no logic for an absolutely indivisible
essence.
DQ/SQ Imho this is the great contribution Pirsig has made with his emphasis
on Quality. Undefined Quality DQ is not the same as a non-existent quality,
or quantified, localized, or objectively observed entity. Substitute Love
for Consciousness (sensibility). Will you acknowledge the absence of
³quantified, localized, or objectively observed² does not modify love
(consciousness) sufficiently to eliminate it?
Joe
> 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.
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/
