Hi again, Mark --
You do present a good description of the difference between the
absolute, and our interpretation of it. Negation is the process for
such differentiation. As I see it, while such differentiation arises
from the absolute, the process for doing so must exist separately
and draw something out. This kind of spark cannot arise on its own,
but must be set, to provide the fire. This form of a negational node
implies a window (or release valve) which exists, not one that is created.
I appreciate the distinction between your ontology and Quality in that the
latter suggests direction. This is also one of my stumbling blocks with
Quality, which comes from an appreciation of Taoism. However, the ever
changing appearance of things does suggest some kind of direction. I
suppose this is why religion is so powerful. There seems to be intent of
some kind. If we delve into the nature of that intent we break it up
statically and look backwards for beginning. If we accept intent without
initiation then a creator is not necessary. I believe you would subscribe
to this latter statement. However, the act of negation does imply a
beginning which does subscribe to creation, so I am left hanging. ...
In the beginning, of our selves, is what I am questioning. If we couple
that with the subjective notion of self, it is difficult to imagine that
such a
a thing came from nowhere. It is not intuitively obvious no matter how
many words are used. There is something not right and forced in that
interpretation. Perhaps something nihilistic, I don't know.
What I presented in the previous post was an ontogeny for the emergence of
differentiated otherness from a negational Absolute. It was only a
blueprint for the "mechanics" of creation, not its value. You are "left
hanging" because you haven't related the created "self" to its essential
nature, Sensibility, which is the "active" contingent of the existential
dichotomy. Now that we're in the differentiated mode, we can describe
"patterns" (negated entities, if you will) in terms of their functions and
relations in the finite world. Keep in mind, as we do so, that Difference =
Negation, and anything that is differentiated is a negated "other" (essent).
Sensibility, as I define it, is the valuistic attribute of Essence that (as
a "negate") accounts for awareness, including self-consciousness and the
cognitive perception of otherness. The biological organism supports this
"individuated sensibility" as being-aware, and every essent that is
perceived represents a denial (negation) of its otherness by the negate. In
other words, the creation of a finite entity (being or thing) is a
"secondary negation" by which the negate incrementally reclaims the value of
otherness for itself. It is my hypothesis that negation/affirmation is a
reciprocal function, and Value is the common denominator. By virtue of the
existential dichotomy, that which divides us FROM the Source as a negate
also draws us TO the Source as value-sensibility.
I appreciate the distinction between your ontology and Quality in that the
latter suggests direction. This is also one of my stumbling blocks with
Quality, which comes from an appreciation of Taoism. However, the ever
changing appearance of things does suggest some kind of direction. I
suppose this is why religion is so powerful. There seems to be intent of
some kind. If we delve into the nature of that intent we break it up
statically and look backwards for beginning. If we accept intent without
initiation then a creator is not necessary. I believe you would subscribe
to this latter statement.
Without getting into Vedantic analyses, I reduce the "intent", "direction",
and teleology of existence to the free will that is innate to the sensible
self. Quantitatively, the universe is a self-subsistent system whose order
and symmetry represent the "intelligent design" of a transcendent Source.
Qualitatively (i.e., valuistically), our being-in-the-world is the reality
created by our value-sensibility. The values we sense may be classified as
aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, and moral; and what we make of this
reality will depend on the particular configuration of our "value
complement" which is unique for each individual.
The physical universe needs no "direction" because its appearance is our
finite (objectivized) experience of essential value. As its subjects (value
agents), however, we do. And the direction we follow is the personal
"intent" afforded by rational, self-directed value. We respond to value
desideristically. It is what we inherently desire or seek as an existent --
joy, contentment, beauty, magnificence, knowledge, peace, freedom,
confidence, and spiritual fulfillment. (You fill in the desiderata, for
they will conform to your unique sensibilities.) The individual is the
autonomous choice-maker of his universe, and what he chooses ultimately
determines the quality of his life-experience.
As an incremental negate of its estranged source, value-sensibility cannot
exist beyond the conditions of finitude. Having rounded the negate cycle,
the individuated self surrenders its conditional being and existential
awareness to otherness, thereby revoking its negated status and reclaiming
its essent-value. The final negation is neither amnesia nor the impairment
of a lingering organism. I envision it as the "redemption of desire" in the
sense that the "lover" and its "love object" are reunited in what is
essentially a "divine consummation."
Cheers, and have a great week,
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
