Hi Kevin --
> Thanks for the clarification. Could you, in plain, non-essentialism > language elaborate on the meaning of "the ultimate source?" > How does one find this meaning? Since Essence itself is indescribable in finite terms, and I use it a lot, I like to refer to it as "the ultimate source" once in a while so that readers will know I'm talking about the Creator and "cause" of existence and not some exotic perfume, for example. I prefer "source" to "cause" for the reason that the latter connotes a series of related events in time, which is only man's finite perspective. You'll note that I discuss Creation in the present tense because in reality it is not a temporal event or process, like winding up a watch mechanism and letting it run out, but a constant principle of a "negational" source. As you've seen, the human individual is at least a "collaborator" in creating the proprietary image of the objective universe that we all relate to. Also, as inventors, builders, engineers, and artists, man is the source of many creations of his own. So I couple "ultimate" with source in order to convey the idea that Essence is the progenitor or "first order" of creation without which nothing exists. I hope that makes my use of the expression clear. > I prefer different language. If I had to choose a word > to give to the source of all I would choose a word like Love. > Or maybe a word that somehow connotes the inability to > define. Maybe a word that can be spoken without the use > of the tongue or the lips, so as to not "construct" the word. > Maybe a word that embodies breath or breathing. That's a noble concept that has much in common with Pirsig's Quality concept. But what you're describing is a human response to something (or someone) relative to yourself. That's Value. When I say we can't experience Essence-Value directly, I mean that only Essence embodies absolute Value, and Essence cannot be reduced to relations. What we sense is the value of an otherness -- Essence experienced from the perspective of nothingness but applied to objectivized finite things and events. Also, Love and Goodness are only aspects of emotional experience, not entities in themselves. They are powerful influences in our lives because they are derived from the Creator, but they do not possess the power to create, and therefore are not the source of existence. Good thoughts, Kevin. I appreciate your open mind. Feel free to question me on the thesis when you've had a chance to review it. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
