[MD] Distinguishing Levels (Individual level)

[Ham Priday]

Case --


Ham said to David:
> Unless you're willing to say that it's just coincidental ...

Case doesn't want to consider Ham's premise, and instead expresses his love
for chaos:
> Honest to God Ham, what in nature suggests to you that it is not
> coincidence? Chaos is an idea of extraordinary power, simplicity and
beauty.
> Any child can see it at work and it explains everything from quantum
> weirdness to hurricanes; from rock slides to bipedal ape descendant. A
> chaotic system answers all of the questions you ask and more. It provides
> for orderly laws that are intellectually discernable. It is not out in la
la
> land, it is growing in your backyard.

I gave my reasons in my post to David.  You evidently think the universe
organizes itself out of chaos.  I suppose then that if you were to believe
in a primary cause it would be chaos itself or a chaotic Creator.

Case:
> Too late. So where did this cosmic principle come from and upon what
> principle is it based? What are these three things anyway? How did they
get
> in the genie bottle to start with and how did they get out? Was that all
> that was in the bottle? If there is a deity how would we relate to him
> except through anthropomorphism? So in addition to Natural Law,
proprietary
> awareness and objective beingness we also have the principle that we can't
> drink essence of Oneness without killing ourselves?
> [snip]
> Did this come from the medieval Christian or the pre-Christian
visionaries?
> which pre-Christian visionaries? Egyptians? Jews? Zoroastrians?
> Why would they be more inspirational than the scholastics or the Aztecs?
> Wasn't Nostradomus a medieval Gnostic? Why would you ignore everything we
> have learned over the past 1000 years and rely on these dudes for
> inspiration? Who are these guys anyway?

For someone who admits I'm "too late" and who claims that chaos has all the
answers, you are extremely inquisitive.

Case:
> You have not developed anything like a foundation upon which a conclusion
> could stand. Which of the elements formerly wrapped in Absolute Oneness
> forces us to make choices?

I don't have the space or the time to lay out a foundation here.  That's
what my thesis does.  What  would be the point of wasting your time and mine
by explaining a premise that you reject from the gitgo?   You have chosen to
side with the nihilists.  Okay, that's an exercise of your freedom.  So what
would it profit you to debate with me just for the fun of arguing?  Nothing
that I could say is going to pursuade you.

Having been down this road before, I've learned that discussion is futile
unless my challenger is capable of sensing the value of order and beauty -- 
not chaos -- and whose reason tells him there is more to reality than an
evolutionary stream of images.  If you can't extend your perspective beyond
the happenstance of objectivism, neither of us has anything to gain by
discussing a philosophy of Essence.

Case:
> I have to tell you that I have tried on four different occasions
> with the best of intentions and with an open mind to make it
> through your thesis but after about the third: "If we assume
> this to be true, then it follows..." or maybe it's the fourth Pauline
> "therefore" it just becomes word salad and I start thinking
> about Jeri Ryan and joining the collective.

If your interest in Essentialism was genuine, you would be asking for
clarification of one or two specific points, not challenging every statement
I've made.  I question both your "intentions" and your "open mind", and
suspect that you're already a member in good standing with the collective.

Better luck next time.

Regards,
Ham