Mark --
To pick up where I left off yesterday . . .
[Mark]:
Yes, I am fine with your "sensible subject"; however, one cannot
separate the material from the spiritual. They are one and the same.
Any division is purely for rhetorical purposes of illumination. The
“thread which connects the pearls of reincarnation” is indeed an
illuminating concept since it explains much more than its alternatives
such as a handful of loose pearls being tossed into this world. The
chain of existence cannot be broken and divided into little pieces
and analyzed separately. Part of that chain is our physical presence.
The sensible subject without apparati is somewhat meaningless in
practice. Any holographic projection requires a source, energy,
and a place for the hologram. Without these three, there is no
apparition. The source defines the picture, which I would assume
is Essence in your ontology. The energy is Value, and the picture
forms within the Sensible Subject. All three of these, while
conceptually independent are pragmatically dependent. The same
can be said for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (just thought
I would inject some Christianity to annoy some unrepentant sinners
reading this).
It's probably more accurate to say that materiality is a "mode of
spirituality" than that they are separate. But as my ontology IS Essence,
not "spirit", this modality (physical existence) is hardly what one would
describe as ephemeral or "holographic". Remember, we're talking about Being
here -- the "solidity" or concreteness of experienced phenomena which, while
not "Reality" in the metaphysical sense, is nonetheless very real to us.
What if the subjective Self is contained in things other than the
human variety? How does such an idea provide more meaning the
universe in general? If indeed we are searching for meaning, then it
behooves us not to shut doors which may lead to astonishment (or
enlightenment I you want). What system is your ontology contained
within? Is it one of human thought, or does it encompass human
thought and thus drive it? Are you providing a human interpretation
of reality, or does reality provide your interpretation? If you
indeed create your reality and it is all pervading for your sensible
self, how does one then turn around and view it from a distance?
While subjectivism is indeed a mode of thought, objectivism must also
exist to bring subjectivism into being. . . .
I am not a subjectivist but an essentialist, so we're not comparing
subjectivism and objectivism in the traditional way. For me everything is a
form or mode of Essence. Beingness is the "positive" contingency of
Nothingness in the mode of existence. What we "create" (better to say
"actualize") as subjective existents (agents) is constructed of
being/nothingness and assumes the form and properties that represent our
particular value perspective.
In the same way, anthropocentrism must exist within a larger context.
I have provided some of that context in the form of concepts. In my
quest for a position of humility, I raise all else to the level of respect
I hold
for you and me.
Thanks, Mark, and I intend to honor that respect. Now to your most recent
post.
[Mark on 10/12]:
Yes, the rebellion against anything smacking of theism certainly
leaves a lot out of life's wonder and converts everything into a
"science", which in my opinion is not metaphysics being used to its
fullest potential.
I use the word tautology to imply that a statement of fact is creating
the very premises that it is based on.
"Blue is my favorite color"
"Why?"
"Because it is Blue."
"Things evolve towards betterness"
"Why?"
"Because things are better now".
"The fittest survive"
"Why?
"Because what we have now is more fit". ...
Exactly. But I do think we're beyond tautology in laying out this ontology.
As I understand teleology, it is the extrapolation of the appearance
to an underlying phenomenon. This is a leap of faith since such
extrapolation is missing a link. I have no problem with teleology so
long as it is understood for what it is. I like your use below which
I will comment on. The nihilist you speak of, would very readily
claim that he/she can create something him/herself. Yet, any
extrapolation of such a concept is prohibited. This is the Ego
speaking.
I see what you're getting at. However, subjective actualization does not
create an "egotistical fantasy" because we are limited to the teleology
(parameters) of the Master Plan that are embedded in Essential Value. This
encompasses the laws and principles of physics, biology, logic, and
relativity which guide evolution and provide a universal ground and reliable
environment for the subjective agent. In other words, the quantitative and
dynamic structure of existential reality is "predetermined" so that all
agents relate to the same universal pattern. The specific "qualities" of
this pattern -- its esthetic, emotional, moral, and intellectual values --
are left for the free agent to realize. (And by "realize" I mean
"actualize".)
In closing, I would say that the "leap of faith" you allude to is belief in
a higher order of reality than Empiricism, radical or otherwise. Neither
Subjectivism nor Objectivism can be the final answer, and Being itself
presupposes a.primary source. By whatever name you choose to call this
ultimate essence, it must both transcend and encompass the existential
reality we all take for granted.
Does this ontology (epistemology?) tie up the loose ends of our respective
worldviews? How close do you think we are to resolving our differences at
this juncture?
In the quest for mutual understanding,
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
