[MD] Where have all the values gone?

[Ham Priday]

Hi David (Platt mentioned) --

While attempting to explain in simple terms to Platt what Essentialism is
all about, I said:


> To put it simply, the value choices we make in life become
> what we are in Essence.  Which is why I say that Essentialism
> is a valuistic philosophy.

Platt hasn't responded.  Instead, you are challenging my summation with a
series of questions, the point of which is a mystery to me.

> What is choice? Where does it come from? And what happens
> to all the options we don't take? Do they just continue where they
> are? remaining in the possible, yet never brought into the actual,
> remaining somewhere transcendental to the actual. What shall we
> call this realm?  Shall we call it essence? Yet it is absent,
> withdrawn, distant, without form, unrestrained in any way.
> No that looks like a bad choice. I know let's call it Nothing!
> Where nihilism is realised as the ultimate sacred source.
> For every actual choice a zillion possibilities are negated.
> That is a sacrifice and a gift.

First of all, an option is only a possibility until it is actualized.  If it
is never actualized it's existence is hypothetical.  There is no "realm" for
unactualized possibilities.  They simply don't exist -- except, possibly, as
an idea in your mind.

You ask what a choice is and where it comes from, as if to suggest that
there is no such thing.
Is it possible to value freedom without knowing what a choice is?

If you're insinuating that man has no freedom because his choices are
causally pre-determined, you're talking to the wrong person.  Unlike rocks
and trees whose fate is determined by the laws of cause-and-effect, or
animal species whose behavior is directed by instinct, Man is *sui
generis* -- a self-determinate creature with the capacity to act in
accordance with his own value choices.  If you can't see this, it's most
unfortunate, because it means you've missed the whole point of existence.

Finally, your reference to nihilism as "the ultimate sacred source" defies
comprehension.
Nihilism is a human belief system that rejects meaning, purpose, or value.
I'm at a loss as to how you could possibly construe this to mean a "source",
sacred or otherwise.

Perhaps if you put your challenge into some kind of meaningful proposition,
I would know better how to answer you.  From your previous posts, I've seen
no hard evidence that you are a nihilist, although I do see some confusion
in your unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of a primary source.

For example, when I asserted that Essence is the primary source, you
replied, "I would resist calling it essential because what essence could you
ascribe to it?  Better to say Nothing."
Is it my concept or the word Essence that troubles you?  What essence would
you ascribe Quality to?  Do you regard Nothing or Quality as more
"essential" than Essence?

Regards,
Ham