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

[Ham Priday]

David --

Who is creating false idols?

I gave you an ontolological synopsis for a single unified source of reality.
You respond with a hegemony (realm?) of unactualized possibilities along
with the unfounded claim that they exist.
> 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.

I, for one, can do without it.  And I'll give you my reasons.

First of all, it doesn't resolve any metaphysical questions; it just adds
unnecessary complexity.
Second, what is possible -- even what is capable of being realized -- does
not exist until it "happens".  Obviously not everything can happen; the laws
of thermodynamics don't allow for happenstance.  So that rules out "infinite
possibility".  But didn't this fellow Pirsig say that
Experience=Quality=Existence?   He also said that what isn't valued doesn't
exist.  By what logic, then, does a disciple expand existence into a realm
that is incapable of being either experienced or valued?  Where the
potential for novelty and change really resides is in man's freedom to
choose.  But even man's options are limited by existential conditions.

I just watched a segment of American Idol, where unemployed, uneducated
teenagers audition for Hollywood fame as "singers" without the slightest
notion of what good singing is, what training it entails, and what
constitutes musical talent.  One after another approaches the stage, each
resolved that he or she will be the next American Idol.  Sure, it's
possible, in the same way that winning the lottery is possible.  But the
odds are stacked against them.  What astonishes me is that one of them will
actually gain this celebrity.

> 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.

Again, the "possible" doesn't exist.  Humans don't simply grab onto a brass
ring and seize the power of actualized possiblity.  Among other things, this
requires discipline in a specialized skill, intellectual understanding,
choosing the right niche for one's talent, constant practice, and providing
sufficient proof of achievement to gain acceptance by the community.  It
isn't by luck or karma that Shakespeare or Newton or Einstein changed the
world.  They didn't pluck their contributions from a "possibility tree" and
run with them; it took real talent and hard work on their part.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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.

Well, you haven't made it clear to me.  You seem to be suggesting that we
choose possibilities.  What I'm saying is that we choose values.  It's our
choice of values that determines what becomes actualized in existence and
what becomes of us.  I see no place for values at all in your teleology.

Yes, I know.  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are
dreamt of in your philosophy."  The New Agers are very fond of dreaming up
fantasies to account for things they can't explain.  They've introduced us
to multi-dimensional universes, extra-terrestrial seeding of life forms on
earth, time travel, and prophetic advice from previous reincarnations.  Your
realm of infinite possibilities would be a welcome addition to their list.

Philosophy was left a prudent legacy by William of Ockham two centuries
before Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.  It stated that "entities should not be
multiplied unnecessarily".  Before getting carried away by some physicist's
speculation concerning the reality of infinite possibility, may I suggest
that a small doze of Occam's razor applied to your reasoning might rein in
your conclusions.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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!

How easy it is to identify what you can't experience as Nothing.  Have you
ever given serious thought to the axiom that nothing can come from nothing?
But, I suppose you expect me to realize that, as a Pirsigian, your source
isn't really Nothing but Quality -- and you want me to believe that Quality
gives rise to life, existence, experience, and possibility.  I cannot
logically make this intellectual jump, and I don't think you can either.

On the other hand, if Essence is the stuff of Primary Reality, I can
understand how everything else is inferior to it, and how that leads to the
awareness of value.  I don't need an incomprehensible heirachy of quality or
possibility for my ontology.

[Ham, previously]:
> 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]:
> 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?

Now, finally, you reveal your true colors.  This allusion to the "empty"
temple at Jerusalem is meant to be a dig at theism.  The "false idol" here
is my supposed deity.  Well, Essence is not a deity.  You're barking up the
wrong tree, David, and I think a practicing theist would agree.

> 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).

I won't dignify that statement with a response.

Better luck next time, when you've sobered up.

Regards,
Ham