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

[Ham Priday]

Hi SA and Marsha --

I thought I'd presented a very clear concept.  But since I seem to have
confounded both of you, let me try to clarify the confusion.

[Ham]:
> So long as we are observing beingness (i.e., things in
> motion) we are applying nothingness to it.

[SA]:
> 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?

Nothingness can have only one meaning: the absence of things.  "It" in the
above sentence refers to "beingness".  Finite things appear when we apply
nothingness to undifferentiated otherness (beingness).

[Ham]:
> Any system that includes or is grounded in nothingness
> cannot be absolute.
> 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?

[SA]
> 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.

The point I'm trying to make is that empirical (relative) nothingness -- the
space that separates experienced objects cannot be absolute.  This is the
nothingness we encounter (but do not directly experience) in existence.
PURE (non-relative) nothingness, on the other hand, is a "hypothetical"
absolute.  And many cosmologies are based on the notion that existence
emerges from absolute nothingness.  Indeed, Essentialism holds that absolute
nothingness is negated by Essence to create the subject/object dichotomy.

[Skipping the quietness SA hears when he walks in the woods, etc.]

[Ham]:
> Absolute Truth is absolutely inaccessible to finite
> cognizance. From an existential (infinitesimal) perspective
> Truth is an enigma.

[SA]
> 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.

I'm not talking about quality but about Truth.  Please hear me out.

> 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 that choice.

[SA]
> 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.

Again, I'm not talking about trees or their values relative to each other.
I'm talking about the choice between a belief system based on Absolute
Nothingness versus Absolute Essence.  You say there is no difference??

[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."

[SA]:
> 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.

Try to focus on what I said.  (I didn't even mention experience.)  I'll try
to simplify it.  We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality.
Therefore, we have a choice.  We can either believe that ultimate reality is
Nothingness -- which is to deny an ultimate reality, or we can believe that
it is Absolute -- which is to believe in a primary source (i.e., Oneness,
Essence, Being, or God).  In the theistic language of Pascal, the winning
bet is that God is.  What is so difficult about Pascal's wager?  He's saying
that if we believe in a transcendent God, we have everything to gain and
nothing to lose; conversely, if we believe in nothing, we have nothing to
gain and everything to lose.

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

[SA]:
> 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.

The proof is in the pudding, not in my conclusions; but your taste buds
don't seem to be working.  You say you observe trees and find value in
seeing and touching them.  That's taking the measure of their value, isn't
it?  You even identify them by species and can tell me how they germinate.
What other creature besides man has such value sensibility?  Yet, we can't
see beyond their appearance in our minds; we can't know their real essence.
We can measure all kinds of phenomena, but we can't discover the ultimate
source of their existence.

Reflect on it, folks.  It's really not all that complicated.

Cheers,
Ham