[MD] Food for Thought

[Heather Perella]

     [Platt said to Ham]
Quality is not something apart like the light outside
Plato's cave or the Essence of your philosophy, but
part and parcel of the world as we know it.  


     [Ham responded to Platt]
> You can choose your metaphysics based on personal
> "satisfaction" or what
> seems most plausible.  I lean towards plausibility. 
> But I don't deny the
> satisfacton.  

     Here, Ham, you're just stating how you lean
towards plausibility, not satisfaction.  Yet, what of
the everyday experience, the non-Plato's cave and
Essence that is not part of this world, yet, we
discuss it, thus, we make it part of this world via
discussion, or else our discussion is not part of this
world, I don't know.  That's what I get from this run
around - an I don't know.  Yet, I don't know is
something I experience here.  I know you say so, and I
guess I say so on 'things' at times to, and that's
what Platt is trying to convey by this choosing Platt
has for quality over essence.  Yet, you mention
plausible.  How do you argue plausibility?  Don't get
frustrated if I may have not made myself clear,
especially the 'I don't know' that I mention and
experience here, but my point is valid.


     [Ham]
> Again you ignore, or fail to understand, what I said
> about "before", "after,
> and "all of a sudden".  These are temporal
> distinctions (differences and
> transitions) that apply only to the subject/object
> dichotomy of existence.
> Life is the subjective experience of a series of
> events.  Neither you nor
> the events are Essence.  They are only the
> perspective we intellectualize
> from the Value of Essence.  If we could experience
> Essence we would BE
> Essence, which is illogical.  So long as your
> reality is an otherness, it is
> not Essence

     Of course, and yet my point was you somehow know
everything about essence, talk about essence, but your
not essence.


     [Ham]
We only observe flux (being in transition) -- right. 
That is the mode 
of human experience.

     ok, yet, you observe only flux in essence, then,
right?  You use word ONLY.


     [Ham]
Essence always has to have been that way, with no
beginning -- right.  

     'something' has no beginning, and I experience
this no beginning right now:  quietness.

     [Ham]
That is the perfect nature of Essence.  Any 
"thing",
any "change", represents a reduction [negation] of the
Absolute.

    ok, and I figure what you mean by us only
observing flux is a jump to noticing an absolute that
has no flux, and this no flux dominates and is better
than flux since it is the source of flux.  Why do you
choose 'no-flux' to be dominating 'flux' and even
giving 'flux' existence?

     [Ham]
Thus,
creation -- the actualization of existence -- must be
less than the 
creator.

     even our thinking would be less, yet, you seem to
know everything about essence and explain it to
everybody, I must really be a tiny skull.


      [Ham]
What makes it "less" is the negated nothingness that
is the ground of
existence.  Nothingness separates you from every other
that you 
experience.

-------
     How does nothing do something, as in separate? 
Where is this nothingness 'outside' of essence. 
Essence can't change, yet, suddenly negation happens,
nothing appears, negates more and more, and then a
beginning, yet, essence didn't change.  This nothing
is doing so much, comes from somewhere outside of
essence or did essence 'choose' to negate?  surely
not, for essence can't choose to negate, so, negation
always is happening, nothingness is always happening. 
And so I say, not this and not that, and mu.  I know
what you say though must be it, and that's the
difficulty.  It's what you say with an affirmative
knowledge stating:  know this and you will understand.
 I say don't have to no anything.  I don't need to say
anything to you.  I don't even have to be here and
yet, you will live this and eventually die this.  It
is quietness that I don't speak.


     [Ham]
Essence is the not-other: it has no nothingness
because it has [is] the
power to negate it.

--------
     Essence negates.  Negates what?  I thought
essence is everything?  And doesn't even change.  When
essence negates, is essence losing something.  If it
loses nothing, then nothing can't do a thing, not even
separate.


     [Ham]
Descriptive, yes.  Satisfying, perhaps. 
Metaphysically plausible, no.  
My bet is on a transcendent primary source from which
all otherness is 
negated.

     Plausible again pops up.  You decided
plausibility here due to your knowing everything about
essence, yet, I thought nobody knows everything about
essence.  If it is the latter, then I get it for I'm a
tiny skull getting nothing of it... so, mu, mu, mu,
all the way home.

thanks.

blue sky, ice on ponds - NO!,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com