[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Heather Perella]

     Changing the name of this thread to not veer from
the base-line discussion.


> >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?

     [Ham]
> >Marsha (apparently) then answers her own question
> by saying:

     In your apparent excitement Ham, it was Platt
that asked the question, and then Marsha answered
Platt.

     [Marsha]
> > > No.  If everything is in a constant state of
> change, I couldn't call these absolutes.

       [Ham]
> >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".

     Ham, this is nothing new, this is what I've
called my tiny skull.  This is dynamic quality -
undefinable, since once you do define it, you've got
yourself static patterns.

      [Ham]
> >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.

     By nothingness, since this word can have more
than one definition, I'm thinking you mean 'it' is
something defined by us, but with loose ends, thus,
not fully definable.  A?


     [Ham]
> 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?

     The can of worms being that you've contradicted
yourself.  "Nothingness cannot be absolute... HOWEVER
-- Pure Nothingness is Absolute..."  I'm sure you're
trying to make a point here, a good point, too, but
you've jumped to a contradiction.  Unless, what you're
saying is nothingness is absolute, but that's what
makes nothingness not absolute.  If so, then I
understand.  This is the same 'thing' that I stated to
you long ago, when I first started discussing with you
Ham when I first started on the MoQ.org.  It is the
focus I have when I meditate, which is:  quietness. 
It is real, and yet formless.  It is solid in it's
sensible recognition.  Yet, I don't just hear
something quiet.  My mind and heart can experience
this quietness that is seemingly behind all that is. 
It is the same as me having a tiny skull.  On the one
hand I hear a bird, and then on the other hand
something is just out of reach... it is quiet... and
when I settle into what was before the bird sang.  I
would call it quiet.  Anyways...

> >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.

  Nothing new here, again.  This is dynamic quality. 
This is quality.  This is static quality, since static
quality has patterns, definable patterns, and yet
those definable patterns will always have this loose
end dangling that just quite can't be summed up and
defined completely.  

     [Ham]
> >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.

  What would absolute essence or absolute nothingness
state so differently from each other?  I don't think
that everything is absolutely nothing, since I can
touch a tree and find value in that tree.  I could say
the tree is nothing, and I can say the tree is
something.  What's it matter how I view the tree from
one moment to next?  It seems my mind can't locked
into an answer on this.  I'm leaning towards what
Marsha said about change.  All these absolutes need
refreshed and my mind cleared.  To stick with either
one is to ignore the value that the other might be
suggesting.

     [Ham]
> >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."

      Sure I can choose which reality I want to
experience, and I don't know all, so, whatever I
choose there's always that one tiny little
understanding - I don't know all, and the world is not
only human logos.

     [Ham]
> >This, my dear friends, is metaphysical proof that
> "man is the measure of all
> >things".

     Oh, how you love to jump to conclusions thinking
you've solved it all.  Are you sitting somewhere
thinking or rejoicing - I've solved it!  Ha, ha, ha,
that would be funny, since you even talk of finitude.

Thanks for this opportunity,
Ham

No, thank you.


     [Marsha] 
> 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!!!!!

     Is this nothingness that is common the same as
primary reality, where events are taking place, and
it's not fully human... we've got mice in our house
you know, and crows flying by,  Women deer, too. 

Thanks,
SA


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index