[MD] What all is about.

[Heather Perella]

     [SA previously]
> >     Ham, I guess my questions were too difficult
> for you.  I do see here that you defined nihilism
> > according to Ham.  Have you ever heard of dynamic
> > quality?  Dynamic quality "does not have a
> rational (i.e., empirical) explanation."  Again Ham
you
> fail to know the basic 101 moq stuff, but I fail to
know
> the basic 101 essence thesis of Ham, but then again
> I've already said I find that thesis to have a
little
> if any value.  When I try to screw in a screw do I
> use a hammer or a screwdriver?  What would be of
more
> value in this situation?  The screwdriver of course,
and
> so the hammer has little if no value in this event.



     [Ham] 
> My metaphysical philosophy is founded on absolute
> Essence, and its value is 
> what relates subjective awareness to objective
> otherness.  To use your 
> analogy, you are trying to screw with a hammer and
> getting yourself screwed 
> instead.

     When I use your thesis, yes, I agree.

      [Ham]
> The reason you find no value in my
> ontology is that you refuse to 
> accept my fundamentals and are using the MoQ as your
> philosophy textbook. 

     No agrument here.

     [Ham]
> Whether you recognize it or not, the Quality thesis
> is a dogma in the MoQ 
> cult in the same way that "original sin" is a dogma
> in religious circles.

     "cult" just another use of a word that Ham
doesn't know how to define.  What about nihilism?  You
gave your definition of a non-nihilistic philosophy
above and the moq fits such a definition with dynamic
quality.  Yet, no matter how much we define and let
you know how mistaken you are about the moq you go on
to overlook the basic 101 understanding of the moq. 
You don't even understand this basic moq 101 stuff,
and yet you profess to know all about the moq and it's
a "cult" and "nihilistic", etc...  I had questions for
you about your god essence and how you perceive your
god essence to be a better god than the others
religions on this earth, but since you find those
questions too difficult to answer I'll move on.

     [Ham] 
> Unless you are willing to start afresh and consider
> the concept of an 
> absolute source from which difference is negated,
> you'll continue to be 
> mired in levels and patterns.


     "Mired"  It is not I that gets "mired" by the
moq, Ham don't forget it is you that doesn't
understand the moq and can't understand the levels and
patterns.

     [Ham] 
> I understand that this is a forum chartered to
> discuss ideas in terms of 
> quality levels, and that many participants are
> annoyed by ideas that don't 
> conform to the prescribed pattern.  Fine, I'm OK
> with that, and I'll 
> restrict my discussion to those interested enough in
> my philosophy to 
> explore the central concepts.  No offense intended,
> SA, but I can't square 
> the circle by making my answers fit your reality
> mindset.


     You got it!


     [Ham] 
> There's a clearing ahead,

     Thank goodness!  I see the sun light's rays.

woods,
SA


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com