From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Sep 18 2005 - 20:21:32 BST
Reinier (and the curious) --
Referring to the primary relation, I had said:
> That would make the breakout of relations automatic
> and involuntary.
You replied:
> Let's rephrase the last sentence to:
> "That would make the breakout of relations inevitable
> if the essential free will, even for an infinite moment of
> time, has an egocentric direction."
Okay, "inevitable" is a good choice -- brilliant in fact -- and I can accept
it in the logistical sense, but I cannot accept "infinite moment of time"
because our definition for the primary source is pre-relational. Time and
space cannot exist prior to relation.
> I think it makes a lot of sense. I do agree on the Essence
> or source encompassing everything but just in an
> undifferentiated way.
> The core-question is still 'why'
I can provide the 'why' if you can give me the 'how'. But we'll both face
awkward embarrassments later if we try to rush through the preliminaries. So
far we've postulated a primary source with the properties of "absoluteness",
"immutability" and "Oneness". (I prefer 'Oneness' to 'monistic', if it's
alright by you, the latter suggesting some kind of doctrinal belief. )
Actually, in my opinion, 'oneness' is implied by 'absolute', since no other
can be added to what is already absolute. Agreed?
Now, since "immutability" means unalterable and unchangeable, we have
effectively defined a "static' source. That means it has to create an
otherness where no other can be added and it must achieve this without
itself moving or acting. Are you ready to take up this challenge?
You throw your cards face-up on the table, suggesting a choice of either
Quality or Energy as the essence of reality. Smart move! It forces me to
show my hand. Historically there have been other choices, of course.
[Kindly indulge me a short lecture here]:
Plato taught that things were "ideas". Pythagoras thought they were
numbers. For Heraclitus, they were combinations of earth, air, fire, and
water. Since Aristotle, Western philosophers generally have defined Plato's
essence as Being, and it wasn't until the last century that quantum physics
showed that energy was the better choice where the states or properties of
being were describable only as statistical data.
But these "advances" in thought have gotten man no closer to ultimate
reality. Let's back up two or three thousand years. Plato's Idealism was
good enough for Plotinus and Eckhart who understood that it doesn't mean
something ephemoral or only "vaguely real", but rather the subjective
platform from which everything springs -- in other words, the very Essence
of physical reality. (And that's good enough for me, too -- but only
because I understand that idealism is a subjective ontology.)
Bearing that in mind, here is how I explain the creation of a subjective
reality by an immutable undifferentiated source. Unless Essence possesses
"power", "energy" or "potential", our definition "immutable and
undifferentiated" could apply equally as well to nothingness. Since my last
post, I've stumbled on another term that expresses the creative force of
Essence in a (somewhat) less contradictory but more 'teleogical' way:
INTENTIONALITY. (Let's ignore the fact that it's been used by philosophers
to mean something else. So has Essence, for that matter.)
So Essence is the absolute, immutable, undifferentiated intentionality
behind existence. It is the 'intention' or "divine will" of Essence to deny
all otherness. This inevitably (thank you) leads to creation. By the
denial or negation of "other" Essence expresses itself as the absolute,
immutable Not-other. And the "illusion" of experiential reality is a
differentiated reflection of that negated other. (I like to call the negated
self the "not" of that other. I also refer to it with Sartre's term
"negate".)
Now, you've asked "Why?" Why should pure Essence include the intention to
create? I could answer by saying "because it's perfect"; but that would be
considered a theological response.
Remember, I said previously that although Essence transcends duality it most
encompass awareness and beingness. I submit that this calls for a different
kind of logic. What if absolute being-aware (in "essential" logic) equals
Essence "aware of its absoluteness from the perspective of the
infinitesimal"? Since man's self in effect represents an infinitesimal
awareness, wouldn't the appearance of man and his infinitesimal perspective
of Essence as otherness complete the equation?
It's the 'two-million dollar question', Reinier. What do you say? If
you're for "go", we're over the hurdle and the remainder is downhill from
here. I see you've sent me a later message that will allow me to expand
this ontology to include value and purpose.
Essentially even more yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 18 2005 - 20:23:51 BST