> > Hi Ham, > > Yes, the dynamics of value seems appropriate for this discussion. And happy All Saints Day to you (heh, heh). We celebrate the Hallowed. So much for not being religious.
OK, what you say makes sense. The terminology strikes me as consistent with a similar notion of my own. In terms of the religious aspect, I would love to find myself with Eckhart's notion. I'm sure he had many detractors that were laughing in incomprehension. However, with this bunch here, any talk of such thing is immediately dismissed, and takes the conversation somewhere else. Metaphysics is indeed abstract as religions should be. Getting there must be somewhat concrete else wise it is like traveling over quicksand. So, I accept your terminology. Now, to carry it forward to the next step. It would appear that we each have a unique personal sense of this existence. At least I think I do, or else I would be looking through at least two pairs of eyes. Perhaps that is what I am doing, and have just gotten used to it. Perhaps I am looking through everybody's eyes, and this is what it feels like. But for the purposes of discussion, let's say that the "I" that we sense is unique, and one of many others. Now, is that sense of the personal strictly created by the physical differentiation? If not, how does one explain Nothing with this in mind. As an objective description, I understand Negation. Such a thing does not immediately appeal to my true subjective experience. What is it that makes this body/brain mine? This is indeed the basis for many religions, and indeed Vedic and Buddhist philosophies claim a reincarnation based on this premise. While I don't see how a reincarnation can carry any memory with it, because that is physical, I do suppose that the subjective sense of "I" can be circular in its existence. This would also be supported by the conservation laws we currently subscribe to in physics. So, negation describes awareness, how does it describe the individual "I" that is beyond thoughts (if such a thing does exist)? Trick or Treat? Mark [Ham previously] > It's been a while since I perused the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, so I'd prefer > not to draw comparisons with Atman that may be confusing. > > I used the term "borrowed" in the sense that having experience (i.e., being > aware) is dependent on the sensory organs of a biological body. The body is > said "to exist" because it is objective even to the subject who identifies > with it. Conversely, the knowing self is not an object. So, empirically > speaking, it does not exist. Now, the term I use for a known entity which > cannot be defined as an existent is "essent". The knowing self, however, is > only the "sensible" contingent of the essent "otherness"; in fact, it is a > negation of Essence in the first instance. > > So that, considered from a "scientific perspective", being-aware is what > you might call a "polarized" dichotomy: e.g., Sensibility/Otherness = > Negate/Essent. In other words, it is the hypostasized relation of two > mutually exclusive, yet interdependent substantialities. (A lot of > multi-syllabic words, agreed; but I'm trying to explain an abstract concept > "mixed with a little scientific terminology", as you requested.) > > As for "negation" being a troublesome term that calls for an alternative > explication, perhaps you can suggest one. I have used "exclusion" and > "exclusionary" in my online thesis to describe the dynamics of Creation. But > I doubt that it's any more comprehensible than negation which, after all, is > a "denial" of sorts, as Meister Eckhart demonstrated. Negation, > incidentally, goes hand in hand with "differentiation", since anything > negated is an "other" to anything else. So there is dialectical merit in > staying with the term. > > Finally, I was amused by the thought of how Eckhart would have reacted to > your dread of sounding "a bit religious" when "going beyond the physical". > Why, that might offend Pirsig! > > My god, man, metaphysics is the exploration of what is beyond the physical! > Everything we've been discussing -- Creation, Nothingness, Sensibility, > Otherness, Essence --they're ALL beyond the physical. Are we so elitist in > this secular age that we dare not mention religion in this context? Isn't > it the height of arrogance for this finite, groveling creature who doesn't > even know what he's experiencing, let alone how he got here, to fear he > might be venturing into spiritual territory? (Sorry Mark, but I had to get > this off my chest.) > > Has any of this been helpful in getting you to your ontological > destination? > > Cheers, and Happy Halloween, > > 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
