[MD] Ham unlike you I will not create false idols

[David M]

Hi Ham

> 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.

DM: Think again. Have you any reason to think that the possible
is unreal or does not exist. The noble winner Ilya Prigogine thinks
that the true lesson of quantum theory is the the possible is richer
and greater than the real. Quantum theory implies that the possible
that never actualises plays a crucial role in determining the actual.
The possible exists, how could we do without it, only not in space-time.

> You ask what a choice is and where it comes from, as if to suggest that
> there is no such thing.

DM: Wrong about me once again, a serious question actually. You
have no answer. I say that choice is dependent on the existence of
the possible.What is choice? Taking something from the possible and
bringing it into space-time. Human beings are such amphibians you know.

> If you're insinuating that man has no freedom because his choices are
> causally pre-determined, you're talking to the wrong person.

DM: Of course I am not, do you not understand anything I have been telling 
you?
You would make a good Horatio to my Hamlet.


> Finally, your reference to nihilism as "the ultimate sacred source" defies
> comprehension.

DM: Well yours.

> 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.


DM: Nothing is the source of all purpose, values, meaning. How truly 
amazing!

> 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.

DM: Funny from my armchair you look confused.

> 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?

DM: Yes. WHY IS THERE NOT NOTHING? You see Nothing has ontological
priority when it comes to ultimate questions. Secondly, the holy of holies 
in the
temple at Jerusalem is empty. This is honest. What do you attempt with your 
essence?
Ham! Can you define god! Nothing is the most unlimited concept of all.Your 
god
is weighed down by his essense. My god has more subtle feminine ways. And is 
of course
a good Shakespearian word for the joyous source of all life. Much ado about 
the no-thing (the vagina).