On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Ham Priday wrote: > Greetings, Steve -- > > >> From a cosmic perspective you are but a tiny invisible speck on >> the third planet of an average sized star--just one of billions of >> trillions of such stars in the vastness of nearly empty space. >> Furthermore, your existence as a single speck on a speck among >> billions of trillions of specks is contained in a mere blink of an eye >> in the expanse of time. However, even though you are so utterly >> cosmically insignificant, you are also completely unique. There will >> never be another you. As a human being, you have the perhaps so >> far untapped genius and creative power of a Mozart or a Davinci. >> You have had extraordinary experiences including profound sorrow >> in mourning the loss of a loved one, and you may have experienced >> transcendent joy while bringing a child into the world or while simply >> contemplating nature. You have felt such experiences transform your >> world in profound ways. You have experienced love so >> all-encompassing that the only way to describe it in such a way as to >> give it justice is to talk about being literally IN love. The profundity >> of such unquantifiably precious moments is in tension with the >> trivializing fact that they have taken place against an infinite and >> virtually vaccuous cosmic backdrop. You are made of stardust, >> but you will end up as worm food. This is the fundamental paradox >> of existence. ... > > That is perhaps the most eloquent appeal to transcendence that I've ever read > on this forum. And I find it interesting that only John and Ron have thus > far seen fit to respond.
Greetings Ham, I can only agree with Andre's words. Of course I can agree with your words too, but only in a negated way. That makes me giggle, because there is often something within me that wants to agree with you, but I have no clear understanding what you are saying, so I have to be satisfied with a wordless agreement, at least on some level, some of the time. But I almost always admire your cool. It's different than Lester Young's cool, but cool just the same. Marsha > > As a septuagenarian, my expiration date is earlier than yours, and I've given > this a lot of thought over at least six of those seven decades. My theory > lends itself to the valuistic philosophy of Essence, so I can't articulate it > in Pirsigian terms. For what it's worth, I'll give you a précis of my theory > in language that hopefully can be universally understood. > > The individual Self is a fall-out of the negation of Essence. If you've read > my thesis, you know I refer to it as a "negate", meaning existential > nothingness. Everything that self depends on for existence -- a functioning > physical body, self-awareness, differentiated beingness, and an ordered > relational world -- is "borrowed" from otherness. As individuated beings we > are born from nothingness and will return to that nothingness at the > cessation of life. This is all fundamental to the ontology of Essentialism. > > Now, you may have noted a "flaw" (i.e., logical fallacy) in this analysis. > For if you are essentially nothing, and nothing does not exist,.how are you > able to experience anything, let alone perceive it as "reality"? My > hypothesis is that, although we are psychic non-entities estranged from > Essence, we are also inextricably linked to the Value of that essence. From > essential value we derive all our experience, thoughts and beingness. > Conversely, it is our inherent nothingness which gives us the ability to > differentiate (negate) self from other, present from past, and one thing from > another. In short, Value affirms what Essence negates. This is possible > because Essence is absolute, and nothing that is negated from an absolute can > be lost. (Priday's maxim.) > > So where does this leave us when it comes to transcending finite existence? > > Life is an illusion which ends, as it begins, with a negation. As an > incremental negate of its estranged source, the individual cannot exist > beyond the conditions of finitude. Instead, having rounded the negate cycle, > the individuated self surrenders its "I"-ness - conditional being and > existential awareness - completely to otherness, thereby revoking its negated > status and reclaiming its essential Value. For each of us, the act of dying > represents the supreme sacrifice because it terminates the "egocentricity" > needed for the continuity of individuated "selfness" through its transitory > existence. Since concern about loss of selfness accounts for most of the > fear we associate with death, it behooves us to remember that the truly > meaningful experiences and greatest joys in life are those in which we lose > ourselves. > > In other words, it is the value of what we perceive that makes the > life-experience worthwhile and unique for each of us. The individuated self > with its appropriated body can freely shape its life-experience in the > knowledge that undifferentiated value is the common denominator. Personal > tastes and proclivities reflect the status of one's psycho-emotional > "conditioning" at any given time; it is these factors which, although > different for each individual, determine whether we feel an experience as > "good", "bad" or "indifferent". > > The net effect of these evaluations over a lifetime is to establish a Value > Complement which defines and affirms our essential identity. The fact that > desire is preferential for each observer means that no two individuals will > have the same exact "Value Complement" - a significant system variable that > probably plays a "collective" role in shaping physical reality. But, in the > end, Value is the "essence" of experience that endures far longer than the > specious details. Ultimately, it is our identification with a unique and > distinct Value Complement that transcends the gap of nothingness and affirms > our essential Oneness. > > > You have seen >> indescribable beauty and experienced boundless joy, you've cultivated >> intense human connections and a mind with the power to contemplate >> untold marvels, you've sought simple pleasures and overcome profound >> suffering, you've lived through times of both bliss and heartbreak >> beyond measure, yet (to quote Rutger Hauer's character in Blade >> Runner) at the moment of your death, all these memories will be washed >> away into nothingness "like tears in the rain." >> >> Much has been said about religion as a human invention in response to >> this paradox--the mother of all problems--the problem of death. Though >> the MOQ offers a broader explanation for religion, many atheists (as >> well as perhaps some theists) see fear of death as the complete >> explanation of the human need to believe in religion. Ernest Becker in >> his pulitzer prize winning book The Denial of Death explained how it >> is not only religion but in fact human civilization as a whole which >> may be thought of as the product of our broad endeavor to suppress the >> knowledge of our own death. >> >> Such supression is accomplished in many ways. One way is the nearly if >> not completly universal human denial of identification with our animal >> nature, our "creatureliness." We are that one sort of animal that can >> decide how to think about itself, and this one sort of animal prefers >> not to think of itself as an animal at all. We are unique among >> animals in knowing that we will one day cease to exist, and so we are >> the only sort of animal which needs a way to cope with that knowledge >> by convincing ourselves that we are something more than creatures, as >> Becker described us, "tearing others apart with teeth of all >> types--biting, grinding flesh, plant stalks, bones between molars, >> pushing the pulp greedily down the gullet with delight, incorporating >> its essence into one's own organization, and then excreting with foul >> stench and gasses the residue." To accept this picture of ourselves >> would be a sort of death in itself. >> >> The beings to practice intellectual patterns became aware of their own >> finitude and needed ways to make sure that this knowledge of our >> deaths is only ever understood on a surface level and never felt in >> its fullness. According to Becker, to truly face the fact of our >> mortality would be an unbearable terror. He wrote, "This is the >> terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of >> self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and >> self-expression--and with all this yet to die." Becker argued that man >> needed to create defence mechanisms against the knowledge of our own >> eventual and inevitable annihilation. Many of these mechanisms >> accomplish this denial in creating distinctions between humans and >> animals. In such distinctions we find comfort. We learn to ask >> ourselves, how could our lives simply end as those of the animals when >> we are so fundamentally different from the animals? We create and >> appreciate music, design and wear fashionable clothing, and read and >> write philosophy. Surely we are not mere animals, so surely we will >> not share the animal's fate. >> >> Religions, of course, have been a big part of humanity's efforts to >> deny its animal nature. Though different religions manage the task in >> different ways including promises of real immortality, one commonality >> among religions is that their systems of mythology generally emphasize >> the creation of humanity as a special act that was distinct from the >> creation of the animals. One reason why evolutionary theory is so >> threatening to so many is that it reasserts a connection between >> humanity and the animal kingdom that humanity worked so hard >> throughout history and through culture to deny. We can understand much >> of the discomfort that many of us have for the theory of evolution >> when we recognize it as an unwelcome reminder that we will one day die >> just as all animals die. >> >> While some atheists take religion be a mere crutch for the weak who >> cannot face death, I think Becker would have been critical of such >> atheists. Have they really faced the fact of their own deaths or have >> they simply found other crutches? Some atheist seem to be feeling a >> little too smug about their ability to live authentically without a >> belief in an afterlife. I can imagine a scene where such a smug >> atheist is perhaps cheering for a sporting event on television. >> Becker's book is the prose equivalent to taking him by the arms, >> shaking him and yelling, "How can you just sit there comfortably on >> your sofa as though there were some real significance to who wins this >> game? You are going to DIE some day! Stop and really think about that. >> You are going to DIE! Someday it will be as if you never even existed. >> You may be remembered for a time. If you are quite famous, perhaps you >> will be remembered for a thousand years or more. But what about 10,000 >> years from now? 100,000 years? In fact, one day the sun will burn out, >> and it will be as if not just you but everyone you ever knew and all >> of humanity had never existed." From that perspective, an engrossing >> sporting event is an empty distraction from the outcome that we all >> must face--our eventual utter anihiliation. >> >> If you have never been terrified by that thought, then perhaps you >> haven't truly and deeply faced your mortality. Existentialists such as >> Becker have asserted that we need to feel this fact on a profound >> level and respond authentically to our eventual deaths in order to >> truly affirm life. Perhaps smug atheists are no different from >> believers in their inability to face their mortality. Perhaps they >> have merely chosen different sorts of distractions and illusions. >> Since Becker takes all human behavior to be guided by the need to deny >> or transcend death by becoming a hero in a cosmic drama of our own or >> society's making, this smug atheist for him can be no exception. Such >> distractions if not illusions are necessary for survival of all >> self-conscious mortal beings. >> >> What does the MOQ have to say about this "fundamental paradox"? Is >> fear of death necessary, or can it be transcended? >> >> Becker takes this fear to be fundamental and necessary, but his >> conclusions seems to follow from an ontological distinction between >> mind and body. There is a fundamental paradox that can't be resolved >> because our symbolic self is forever alienated from our mortal bodies. >> Since the MOQ disolves this ontological distinction, the MOQ may >> offer some insights which Becker, with his SOM assumption, may have >> overlooked overlooked. >> >> I would love to hear what thoughts you may have on that idea since I >> don't have much insight to offer myself, and I fear that I will die >> some day. >> >> Best, >> Steve >> 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
