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

[Ham Priday]

Case --


> Ok, Ham, lets focus on what you say here.
> It is a beautiful illustration of how you apply reason.
>
> You state:
> "We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality."
>
> You conclude:
> "Therefore, we have a choice."
>
> How does this conclusion follow from the statement?
> What in the statement even asks for a conclusion?

For your information, these statements were an attempt to answer Marsha's
question concerning whether the "interconnection" of everything and that
fact that "everything changes" are absolutes.  SA's response also implied at
least one question on this topic: How do we know?

My answer is that we can not know; we can only choose a belief.  One either
believes in something beyond existence or not.  Ultimately the choice comes
down to believing in a transcendent source (which is religion, mysticism,
spiritualism, pantheism, or supernaturalism) or beliving in nothing(ness)
which is nihilism.

> Now based on a conclusion that unconnected
> to your premise you go on:
>
> "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)."
>
> You construct a dichotomy out of thin air asserting
> them to be the only possible choices. ...

Existence is indeed a dichotomy, but I haven't "constructed" it here.

> Next you drop a name.
>
> "In the theistic language of Pascal"
>
> Then you imply expertise in the works of the dropped name:

I don't think quoting Pascal's wager implies any particular "expertise"; but
it does set forth an intellectual choice between belief in a primary source
and nihilism.

> So to review:
> 1. Your premise is drawn from thin air.

So are most hypotheses.  Except that anyone with intellectual discernment
would refer to what you call "thin air" as intuive reasoning.

> 2. Your conclusion is unrelated to the premise.

If by my "conclusion" you mean the statement that "man is the measure of all
things", I beg to disagree.  Value is defines what is meaningful and
significant in life.  Accordingly, what one believes may be the most
significant value in existence.  Man is the measure of this value, as well
as everything he experiences.

> 3. The dichotomy you construct has little to do
> with the conclusion or the premise.

What dichotomy?  Do you consider belief or non-belief a dichotomy?

> 4. You drop a name to lend some needed weight.

I used Pascal's wager as an illustration of man's ultimate choice.  I
assumed it was vaguely familiar to most people here, and thus an appropriate
analogy for the point I was making.

> 5. Mix and stir.
>
> This same pattern is repeated many times in your
> online term paper. I frankly admit that I quit reading
> both it and your posts after the third time you insist
> on this technique.
> I chose this simplified example because at least it
> spared us all a review of how you define terms.

Again, for your edification, my on-line thesis is not now, nor was it ever,
a "term paper".  I can only assume that your repeated reference to it as
such is an attempt to degrade it.  Despite the allegation that I've resorted
to some fallacious "technique" in developing these thoughts, you haven't
successfully demonstrated it to me.  All it has proved is that you're still
"full of it".

Cheers,
Ham