Hi there, Mark --
If indeed our subjective awareness is confined to the logical
mind, then we are forming a construct of what appears to us
through the various senses which has meaning to us. And
although the border of such a thing is fuzzy, we can describe
that as other. I have asked (many moons ago) where the
other/self boundary is. As a biochemist, I know that we
change every molecule in our bodies regularly. So we are
left with self as Presence, so to speak. ...
I didn't know you were a biochemist. So is my oldest friend who recently
retired as a college professor in Spartanburg, SC. I only managed to earn a
B.S. in biology/chemistry as a wayward pre-med student. What is a
bioelectrochemist, by the way? That's a new one for me.
So, where does the subjective begin? At the root of it, I can
only say that it doesn't. There are those who believe that it is
the thought process, but that certainly hasn't worked for me,
since there is so much going on that is personal, outside the
thought process.
Analogies are useful. I like to think of the Self as a mirror reflecting
the light of Essence in fragments that we experience valuistically in
space/time. That makes us "value detectors" with no essence of our own
other than what we sense valuistically as beingness.
So, here is where Quality comes in. Most of my interpretation
still comes from ZMM. If it is defined as the pre-intellectual
awareness, which then gets converted to thought, then that is
where I have to look. Unfortunately, while the intellect may
provide a path, it does not provide the knowing. I understand
the negation of essence in a knowing way, but it does not work
for me intellectually. Yes, I have read Heidegger, and his
sudden creation of nouns leaves me lacking, because he then
goes on [to] define them teleologically. But, I am slow sometimes.
You're not slow at all, Mark. Heidegger is almost as incomprehensible as
Sartre. In fact, I think you've got it right on. We're not talking
biochemistry here, but metaphysics. Knowing or cognition is what I call
"proprietary sensibility", and it is a differentiated reflection of the
essential Source. Organic being is of course the existential vehicle for
this finitely defracted reflection, but sensibility itself is essential and
ubiquitous, although divided by nothingness in the human perspective of
reality.
To borrow from a biblical phrase, we know in part what Essence is
absolutely. Whatever is "known in part" is a negation of the Absolute
Source which is indivisible. That's why "nothingness" logically must be the
existential "divider" -- in this case, the negate or cognitive self. But
since Essence is indivisible, this finite reflection that is the basis of
our experience is fleeting and illusory, except for the Value (Quality?) of
which its images are constructed.
Does this add any insight to your interpretation, Mark?
Thanks for the compliments regarding my website which I'm attempting to
accommodate to the new-fangled browsers.
Essentially yours,
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/md/archives.html
