G'd Evening Ham, Some more attempt at harmonization followed by a possible difficult area for reconciliation.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 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. > > 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. [Mark] That sounds good to me. I use the word "appearance" or "manifestation" which may be the same thing. Yes, I understand you ontology is essence. In the paragraph of mine above I provided the holographic analogy for my simple interpretation of Essentialism. Keep in mind that the analogy is very sketchy. The projector the possibility of all sorts of projections. (Don't know if this captures Essence). The projected light for the hologram could be Value (although I would assume in your ontology, that the directionality of that energy may be reversed). And the final apparition would be our physical world. Man would select which picture to feed into the projector, and thus negate every other possibility (I know this is a mirror image of your negation, but such are the flaws of analogizing). > > > 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. [Mark] Yes, it is a twist on subjectivism. The anthropocentrism of Essentialism is a form of subjectivism if used loosely. More on this later. > >> 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]: >> ...some deleted statement on the circular form of logic. > > Exactly. But I do think we're beyond tautology in laying out this ontology. [Mark] True, and the only reason that I bring it up as a red flag, is that the meanings of words are important. While in the end every description (or definition) eventually becomes a full circle of words (if carried out as definitions of definitions) with no underlying foundation except for the person uttering those words, terms such as "betterness" is so highly dependent on the person talking that it is hard to define. > >> 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".) [Mark] I think what I was getting at was that many can accept that: We create in a purposeful way, but that something from which we are made cannot do so. Our ability to create purposefully is not some kind of anomaly. I am on your side if this is what you mean by Master Plan. That is, we are but a reflection of many, of something much grander. The reflections vary depending on the being on this earth, but ultimately they are all the same in nature. A problem with a more restricted interpretation of "Master Plan" is that it can be reduced to determinism. This can be alleviated if we include Free Will as part of the Master Plan. This would be representative of a Master Plan that has no Master Plan. Of course if we assume that the nature of the Master Plan is of a nature that we could never conceive of, then our simple human logic is trivial. > > 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. [Mark] The "leap of faith" (incorrectly attributed to Kierkegaard, by the way, since he never uttered such a phrase), is to try to include our intellectual descriptions into a larger description. Since our logic can only take us so far, we can create something such as Essence, but there is no strict logical way of proving such a thing. Therefore, we simply have to believe that what we sense can be interpreted as the larger model. Transcending is a good word for it. Kierkegaard spoke of three circles of human existence, the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious. To get from one circle to another is not simply a matter of logic and hard work, but one must in essence be born again. Dispair can often play a part, as he discusses in "The Sickness Unto Death". Don't know why I am rambling about Kierkegaard since I really do not understand much of what he writes... By saying "take for granted" you provide a difference between the existential and the noumenal. For indeed, it is simply one of attitude. This whole existence we partake in is a mystical experience. However, since we compartmentalize and filter it so rigorously we tend to toss it aside as unremarkable. This is where I would interject on a difference I see between your Essentialism and my Qualityism. I do not see the existence of something hidden as necessary for ontology creation. This does not mean that I am stuck in the phenomenal. But if we are able to partake in all that there is (Clean the Doors of Perception, (not get rid of the doors altogether as some in this forum seem to be promoting)), there is no need to create some separate or hidden entity. It is what is here, it is the sum total of all qualities and their interaction. Much of these qualities and interaction can never be measured due to their nature, but they can be imagined and formulated in the abstract. > > 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? [Mark] So, the distinct separation of Essence and Sensibility would be one difference, (but I am easy and perhaps there is some form of separation in my sense of reality.). Another possible difference lies in Creating quality (or value), and experiencing quality. As you know, I sense that what we experience as the quality of this life and the quality of all outside is an interpretation of something which can appear in all sorts of guises, most of which could be outside of our comprehension. Matter can exist in many different forms, but ultimately it is all matter. Your "realization" is my "interpretation". I do not find man to be that different from all else, except to us humans, of course. There are different modes of being. One would be this living, another would be before we were born. In each state we interpret reality very differently, but the Self does not come from nothing, now Nothingness is another story altogether. Otherwise, I proudly call my self an Essentialist, where Quality is Essence. It is easier than saying a "Qualityist". Essence is the Quality of all (all qualities come from Essence), and Quality is the Essence of all (all essence comes from Quality). I have come a long way in our discussions, and if there are differences it is my gain since then we can discuss them. Be assured, I will not insult Yo' Mama as some tend to resort to in this forum. > > > 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
