[MD] Ham let's call the sauce essence if you prefer

[David M]

> [Ham, previously]:
>> Metaphysical questions have always been unavoidable.
>

DM: Missing NOT in below, hope that helps. I was saying we have a big
problem getting anyone to face up to metaphysical questions, therefore
we need a way to challenge them and make it difficult tobe dismissed

> [DM]:
>> Not been too near many of our modern universities recently
>> then?  You will NOT find many people taking metaphysics seriously
>> as we both agree they should.
>
> By cause, I mean "genesis" or "origin of", as in Creation.
> Depending on your perspective, Nothingness is either negated by the 
> primary
> source [Essence] or is the negational nature of Essence.
> Nothingness is neither finite nor infinite.  It is the non-existent
> antithesis of Essence.  (In poetic terms, you may consider it the "shadow"
> of Essence.)

DM: Interesting, well I think I would like to see the source of creativity 
as
Nothing rather than essence because then we really have to face up to the
miracle of creation, with no illusions about scientific notions of causes.
SO that we donot think of this solurce in any spatio-temporal terms.

>
> [DM]:
>> I would say awareness is the difference between nothingness
>> and finite being.
>
> You might say that; but if awareness is the difference, it logically 
> follows
> that in the absence of awareness being = nothing.

DM: Well how great is that! So we need awareness from the start.

 I believe that's a
> logical absurdity.

DM: As Heidegger argues, at these depths logic is a poor aid.


 I make nothingness the difference, so that, in the
> absence of nothingness, being=awareness.

DM: Nothing is never entirely absent, it the only plausible source,
surely its absence becomes the absence of awareness, the fall
into the space-time finite world

  However, such syllogisms are only
> useful as relational analogies to enhance comprehension.  The only logic 
> we
> can infer about Essence is the Cusan principle that the absolute source
> [Essence] is the not-other.

DM: I say absolute other -Nothing.

 I go one step further by positing that
> self-awareness (i.e., conscious sensibility) is the "not-" of "other".
> Hence, the negation hypothesis.

DM: I suggest to  Nothing we add not-nothing, so that SQ
emerges from DQ and the relationship DQ to SQ is the Nothing
becoming aware of its own self-created negation.

>
> I had previously asked:
>> How does one make choices for the universe as a whole?
>
> To which you replied:
>> I assume the universe got along fine evolving prior to mankind.
>
> Again, I don't follow your logic.  You said: "in finite circumstances 
> there
> are finite choices, but for the universe as a whole this does not apply."
> If your meaning is that we can't make choices that affect the evolution of
> the physical universe, I never implied that we could.  So, why did you 
> bring
> up that issue in the first place?


DM: That is not my meaning, simply people are finite agents, the cosmos
as a whole an unlimited agent

>
> [DM]:
>> Obviously the only future/s we can know has to be known now,
>> but as some futures come into finite being and some do not the 
>> distinction
>> between future-potential and present-finite-being is pretty easy to 
>> grasp.
>
> You've totally lost me.  How can we know the future now?  What futures 
> don't
> come into being?  This idea is sheer nonsense.

DM: I can see many futures. One is this sentence I am writing, the other 
futures
are all those other sentences that I have chosen not to write at this 
moment. From
the many sentences one comes into being the others have not and may never do 
so.



>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> I justify [killing in warfare and capital punishment]
>> by virtue of what you might accept as a corollary of
>> Pirsig's morality maxim: Some things are more evil than others.
>
> [DM]: I find that bland.
>
> Well, David, I find the original maxim bland, too.  So where does that 
> leave
> us?
>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> Every choice is a possibility, since only a fool would choose
>> what is impossible.
>
> [DM]:
>> I think the crux of choice is whether you can get into a position
>> where you can actually get to bring your desired possibility into
>> space-time.  If it is out of reach you are only making yourself
>> suffer with unobtainable desire.
>> But sometimes you have to take that risk.
>
> That sounds like a hybrid of Buddhism and fatalism to me.  We can only act
> on a possible choice.  While it is true that we don't always know what is
> possible, choosing what is not possible isn't a "risk"; it's simply
> nonsensical.

DM: Surely there are projects/goals/hopes close at hand that are easy and 
hard ones
of high value that are worth trying for but may in the end defeat you?


>
> [Ham, previously]:
>> Since we exist, we came from SOMETHING.
>> That something may be "no thing" but it can't be nothing.
>
> [DM]:
> Any good reasons for holding that odd assertion?
>
> Yes.  Plain old logic that we call common sense.

DM: Very transcendent!

>
> [DM]:
>> God is plausible only as a possibility not yet brought about.
>>
>> It's not original you know.
>
> Gee, it really impresses me to know that somebody else could spout such
> nonsense!


DM: Then there is no need for cosmic evolution in your view? And we
probably just end up with the god and world hating sacrifices of the 
fundies.

>
> I say we've had enough of this.
> And would you please come up with a new subject heading?  I'm really 
> getting
> tired of the false idols.

DM: Well the possibility existed for you to change it but you just couldn't 
see it
and just couldn't reach it!