From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Sep 08 2005 - 07:01:17 BST
Hi Platt --
> What really throws me off about your theory is "self as a "negate"
> (nothingness.)" It boggles my mind when I try to think of something as
> nothing.
Yes, it's a brain-twister, alright. However, it makes a lot more sense than
appears at first glance.
Look at it this way: Everything you experience in the world is an "other" to
yourself. But what is your "self"? It is a sentient "not other" with no
physical attributes. It can't be quantified, localized, universalized, or
empirically validated. It is not a thing, being, or event. Physically
speaking, it is "no thing" -- a nothingness. (Epistemologically, it is the
nothingness that divides all experience into the "discrete particulars" that
define our universe.)
Metaphysically, of course, the self is something more. Not a "thing" or
being, mind you, not a biological creature with a mind, not an ego looking
for social acceptance and self-esteem but, rather, a set of values. The
individual confronts a myriad of objects and situations in the
life-experience, some as a result of personal choice, others spontaneously
presented for his evaluation. What is really being valued here? Is it the
objects and events of experience themselves, or could it be the essential
source of their existence? If we, or our intellects, were the primary
creator of our existential reality, what value would it have for us?
The "discrete particulars" of existential otherness, like the finite
"no-things" that experience them, are transitory phenomena that have meaning
only in terms of relative or conditional value. As no-things, we can't be
the source of that value; we can only reflect upon it and respond to it as
free agents. My theory is that Value is an experiential manifestation of
the Essence which is its source. In the life-experience each of us
identifies with a unique configuration of values that relate to these
particulars. I call this our "value complement" because it represents what
was lost (denied) to us -- the Beauty that you love, for example -- when we
were negated from Essence as individuals. I also maintain that it is
precisely this value-complement, rather than the negate with its trail of
memories or some spirit vestige of the person, that is restored to Essence
when life ceases for us.
I think this valuistic philosophy goes farther than the MoQ in satisfying
the individual's need for a non-theological belief system. There are
several reasons why I believe this to be a "sensible" thesis:
1) It is supported in various ways by visionaries such as Eckhart,
Plotinus, and Nicholas of Cusa; by philosophers like Schopenhauer,
Heidegger, Hegel, William James, and Allen Watts; and by more recent
thinkers, including J.A. Wheeler, Donald Hoffman, and Phillip Johnson.
2) It offers a plausible ontology to account for the creation of a
differentiated evolutionary world by an absolute immutable source.
3) It introduces an anthropocentric perspective of reality based on the
autonomy of man as the free agent and choicemaker in a deterministic
universe.
4) It proves that Essence cannot be indigenous to individuality and
relational beingness, and it vindicates the inaccessibility of Absolute
Truth as consistent with the principle of Individual Freedom.
5) It accommodates the spirituality of religion but not the theological
dogma, positing Value as the essence of man and the inextricable link to his
creator.
> The mystic's experience of "oneness" is a result
> of temporarily superseding the limits of the human regulator, which from
> an evolutionary view, lets in more light of awareness than any of its
> predecessors.
The same sort of experience has been claimed for LSD, peyote and marijuana.
If man was meant to experience such mind-altering effects, the human brain
would have been designed to achieve Nirvana without the necessity of
self-hypnosis and chemical substances. I would suggest that we keep our
brains intact for the tasks and decisions required in this world,
which is why we're here in the first place.
> "On the death of any living creature the spirit returns to the spiritual
> world, the body to the bodily world. In this, however, only the body is
> subject to change. The spiritual world is one single spirit who stands
> like unto light behind the bodily world and who, when any single creature
> comes into being, shines through it as through a window. According to the
> kind and size of the window less or more light enters the world. The light
> itself however remains unchanged." -- Aziz Nasafi
A fanciful scenario set in pretty prose. How far would it get as a
metaphysical thesis?
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 : Thu Sep 08 2005 - 07:03:13 BST