[MD] Probability

[Ham Priday]

Case --

 [Case]:
> You and Platt were invited to provide examples of certain Truths or
> Absolutes. Platt at least stepped up to the plate with a couple of
examples.

For relative truths, how about 2 + 2 = 4;  or all animals are organisms; or,
for any right-angled triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the
sum of the squares of the other two sides; or no two things can occupy the
same space at the same time?   Absolute truth presupposes an Absolute which
contains no relative truths.  Therefore, if you deny the Absolute, you deny
absolute truth.

[Case]:
> I have said over and over again that I think purpose
> resides in each and every one of us.

I do not deny this.  In fact, it is our choice as free creatures, and I'm
totally with you in encouraging it.  However, the purpose I'm talking about
is what Pirsig would call "pre-intellectual".  It refers to Teleology -- the
purpose of our existence.  Platt has said something to the effect that it is
innate in the universe, which would appear to be supported by Pirsig's
Quality thesis.  He envisions it as a kind of extracorporeal morality.  My
own position on "cosmic order" or teleology is that is the intellectual
construct of man; that is, a finite or relativistic representation of the
absolute source.

 [Case]:
> Your insistence that [purpose] lies elsewhere and your
> description of its function make it sound like a security
> blanket. Because you say I live in fear does not make it so.
> ... All I am getting from you is that I should accept your
> fantasy because it will make me feel better.

I'm a free-thinker, not a proselytizer, and I never "insist" that someone
accept my thesis.  I "present" it for consideration, and accept questions
from anyone who expresses interest.  Essentialism is not a "security
blanket"; it doesn't protect the ego or the self; actually, it rejects the
immortality of selfness.  The core belief of this philosophy -- what you
call my "fantasy" -- is the immutability of an absolute source.  You're free
to accept it or reject it.

[Case]:
> This sounds like you are making up soothing stories so you don't have to
> sleep with the light on.  Are you claiming to have Absolute Knowledge in
an
> infinite world?

I make no claims for Essentialism as an objectively provable truth.  I've
also said numerous times that Absolute Knowledge is inaccessible to man.
Like most philosophies, including the MoQ, Essentialism is a belief-system
with a  metaphysical foundation.  A magnanimous person could say that it's
Pirsig's Value taken one step further with a fully developed metaphysics.

--Ham