From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Mon Sep 19 2005 - 07:07:38 BST
Reinier (and onlookers) --
Pt. 2:
> Just remember Ham, I'm learning as I'm writing. Every discussion
> helps me to further shape my thoughts on this issue. I'm more then
> willing to contemplate on the 'why' question. You seem to be many
> years ahead of me (and I'm not just referring to age here ;-)
> so please elaborate on your divine-will theory.
Thanks for the flattery. But I hardly deserve it. Believe me, Reinier, I
fall far short of the intellect and literary knowledge displayed by the
majority here, yourself included. The conclusions I've arrived at are
simply my way of dealing with an enigma that has troubled me since
childhood. Two events during my college years sparked a passion for
metaphysical understanding.
I was a science major with an interest in Biology and Physics, but, except
for Geometry in which I excelled in high school, my math and rote memory
skills were abominable. On the advice of the college counselors, I decided
to take Analytical Geometry (I think that's what it was called) instead of
Calculus as my math elective. I sat in the front row and took copious notes
so I could pass the course. As a surprise to everyone I aced the final exam
(an open-book test).
The second event was a course in the History of Western Philosophy taught by
a pipe-smoking professor with a penchant for challenging his students with
impossible questions. I wasn't his best student, but I enjoyed the
challenges enough to enroll in a Logic course he also taught. To tell the
truth, I learned more from those minor courses than I did from my pre-med
majors, having to take Organic Chemistry twice to get a passing grade!
So much for the secret confessions of an inferior scholar.
Since you've given me a free hand here, I'll lay out my hypothesis in such a
way that you're bound to find some holes in it. Please remember that this
is only a theory, not a doctrine, and your insights and suggestions are most
welcome.
I have previously said that 'difference' (more precisely, differentiation)
is the beginning of relations. I've also suggested that the logic of human
reasoning, like mathematics, does not apply to a state of infinity or the
Absolute. Nicholas of Cusa allowed for this when he theorized that the
'first principle' had to be a not-other which is not opposed to anything
(i.e., is not other than either X or not X). I contend that the law of
contrariety also has a special inference when applied to a non-contradictory
source. For example: the opposite of Oneness is not duality or some finite
quantity but an 'imaginary' Nothingness; Infinity cannot be increased or
diminished; the Absolute cannot be partitioned into finite segments; what is
Immutable has neither a beginning nor an end.
Given these axioms, the creation of a dynamic pluralistic world is
problematic, to say the least. Yet, because it happens, it must have an
explanation. I've gone right to Cusan logic for my hypothesis, substituting
Essence for the 'first principle'. Assuming that the nature of reality is
subjective, if Essence is the absolute not-other and my awareness is a
particular not-other, then the particular must be related to the absolute.
But, you say, the Absolute has no particulars. Right you are; but if you
allow 'intentionality' to represent the subjective "character or negational
potential" of Essence, you distinguish Essence from nothingness and afford
it the wherewithall to negate or "deny" appearances. (Hegel used the term
"appearances" for what you call "illusions".) Let me hasten to add that
there are no particulars -- no appearances or illusions -- in Essence; there
is only the negational intent which, in humanistic terms, is denial.
You have also alluded to the "inevitability" of Creation from the primary
source, which makes Creation an axiomatic truth of the 'first principle'.
I'm inclined to agree, although I think there is also an implied value
transaction in Creation that superposes the axiom. To understand this, try
to forget everything you've absorbed from the MoQ regarding Quality and
Value -- for the moment, anyway.
If anything can be said to have Value, certainly the absolute source and
Essence of our existence warrants that appellation. But -- and here I must
depart from Pirsig -- Value can only be experienced appositively, that is,
by a subject for its object. In other words, for Essence to have Value, it
must be experienced. And since we cannot attribute experience to the
immutable Source, its Value is meaningless without the awareness of Essence
as an other. The "other" that we are aware of is the illusion of things and
events in space/time -- our finite (really infinitesimal) intellectualized
perspective of the Absolute. And, since the self (our proprietary
awareness) is negated nothingness, and the other it experiences is
illusionary, our connection with Essence is not spiritual or material but
'valuistic'.
In short, Value is the essence of man's experience. The configuration of
experiential values that is unique to every individual (what I call the
"value complement") represents his/her essential reality. Or, as I
suggested metaphorically to Platt: "It paints your portrait in the Hall of
Essence."
Life has both meaning and purpose. By virtue of our individual free-will,
we humans are the "choicemakers" of this world, which gives it meaning.
Because we are endowed with the capacity to realize Value autonomously in
our responses to experiential beingness, we are inexorably linked to the
Oneness of our Creator, which gives it purpose. I can conceive of no other
metaphysical scheme that would be as effective in achieving these
objectives. And, although I am unable to describe or explain this scenario
from the perspective of Essence, I'm convinced that the conditional values
we realize in our life-experience somehow "perfect" Essence by affording an
"outside-in" view of its Absolute Value.
I hope you find this expanded exposition to be mostly comprehensible and no
less sensible than my previous outline. This could stand a thorough
critique, so please feel free to attack me on any point that seems to lack
coherence or defies logic. Suggestions for more precise terminology or
improved clarity are particulary welcome. Most of all, I'd like your
opinion as to how credible you think my thesis is.
Essentially 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 : Mon Sep 19 2005 - 07:30:40 BST