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

[David M]

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

DM: So you do not value what quantum theory has added to science.
Maybe not science at all. The possible has to be treated as having real
effects in quantum theory.

> First of all, it doesn't resolve any metaphysical questions;

DM: Exactly, but it does make the questions unavoidable, ands this is
much better than pretending you have answers when you don't.

it just adds > unnecessary complexity.

DM: You find Nothing complex! How funny you are!

> 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.

DM: Well yes in finite circumstances there are finite choices, but for
the universe as a whole this does not apply. The whole point though
is that we do experience the possible, it is the future, without it there
are no choices, and it has value, how else would we be able to make
choices without values? Although we can choose to ignore value, how
else do you explain evil? We can certainly bring some hell to earth if we
so choose.
>
> 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.
>

DM: The great makes great choices, the dumb make dumb ones.
If the great make great choices they must have avoided the dumb ones
that exist but which they do not wish to actualise. This is DQ at work.
Either way you seem to think that their is a choice, so there must be
real possibilities to choose from. Sorry if this is a big gap in your
philosophy to date, but congratulations your choices have just expanded
if you are honest about it. But go on you can admit you were wrong
like a man.

> [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.

DM: Wrong again, this is a bit of a repeating pattern. If we are to make 
choices
we need to be able to make value judgements between them based on their
quality.Values are central. Shall I save the drowning man or let him drown,
a real choice, you choose,all choice reflects values.

> 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.

DM: Is that a grown up argument?

> 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.


DM: Yawn, Occam's desperate rzor is produced......

>> [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?

DM: Yes it implies that we don't exist, but here we are.

> 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.

DM: Then it is a flat and dead and unopen philosophy where nothing new 
appears
under the sun.

> [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.

DM: Again you try to make me into something I am not because
you cannot grasp how I can be standing on your ground but rejecting
your description of it. I think that this emptiness is the only acceptable
metaphor for god, you think god has clothing, I think god cannot be
given any essence, or need any essence to be a true creative source.
Truly other, truly other-wise.Why do we feel such pain at this world's
horrors?! because, because it could have been other-wise. Possibility=Hope,
on the other hand any essence ought to be held accountable for all
the evil it has brought into being. God is plausible only as a possibility
not yet brought about.

>> 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.


DM: Good enough for Shakespeare.

DM: Silence, nothing, now you are getting with it....