[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[MarshaV]

At 12:29 PM 11/11/2006, Ham wrote:

>Good morning, Platt, Marsha --
>
>
>Platt quoted Marsha as saying:
> > Here are two statements that haven't changed much
> > for me, even though my perspective has changed some.
> > 1. Everything-is-connect-to-everything.
> > 2. Everything-is-in-a-constant-state-of-change.
> >
> > Are those absolutes?
>
>Marsha (apparently) then answers her own question by saying:
> > No.  If everything is in a constant state of change,
> > I couldn't call these absolutes.
>
>I agree with Marsha, and I also consider this a leading question.
>
>We don't have "absolutes" in existence; we have what I call "finitude".
>Empirical science cannot even prove that the universe is absolute.  So long
>as we are observing beingness (i.e., things in motion) we are applying
>nothingness to it.  Any system that includes or is grounded in nothingness
>cannot be absolute.  [You may consider this Ham's 'first metaphysical
>axiom'.]
>
>HOWEVER -- Pure Nothingness is Absolute.  And it is possible to theorize a
>finite universe derived from absolute nothingness, as about half of the
>cosmologists have done.  Why do I open myself up to this can of worms?
>Because I want to use this opportunity to establish a cosmological
>principle: Absolute Truth is absolutely inaccessible to finite cognizance.
> >From an existential (infinitesimal) perspective Truth is an enigma.
>
>As a consequence, one is free to accept or reject the concept of an Absolute
>Essence.  Either choice must be made on the basis of intuitive reasoning
>rather than empirical evidence.  You may regard this principle as a
>coincidence of Nature, but it is a metaphysical fact of existence that
>insures the autonomy of the Choicemaker.  Ultimate reality is either
>Absolute Essence or absolute Nothingness.  And the value of philosophy hangs
>on your choice.
>
>Since it appears that cosmological truth is denied us absolutely, life may
>be viewed as a gamble in which the individual is free to choose.  As Pascal
>said: "Let us weigh the gain and loss in choosing 'heads' that God is.  Let
>us weigh the two cases: if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose
>nothing.  Wager then unhesitatingly that He is."
>
>This, my dear friends, is metaphysical proof that "man is the measure of all
>things".
>
>Thanks for this opportunity,
>Ham

Ham,

Have you been snacking on rum balls?   I have spent the last decade 
focusing on common, simple, everyday nothingness.  And for goodness 
sake, don't you understand?  Woman is the measure of all things!!!!!

Marsha