[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Mark --


> Hi Ham,
> I have yet to provide an answer to you on our previous discussion
> which I will get to momentarily.  In the meantime I will be annoying
> and interrupt your conversation with Tim.  I choose the paragraph
> below.  Which I will put into context by the questions before.
> [skip comments between Tim and Ham]
> Ham, I understand that you propose that a subject is necessary to
> realize quality or value, and that such a thing does not exist before
> such realization.  However, I believe you can also look at this another
> way.  This would be the realization of something that is already there.
> Now this may sound a bit far fetched to you, but hear me out.
>
> There is no doubt that everything is not the same.  We can ask why is
> everything not the same and appears differentiated?  I find it hard to
> imagine that such difference does not exist prior to our coming on
> board, but that is also a philosophical argument.  For the time being
> let's just say that for whatever reason (a big bang, or somebody's hand)
> such difference exists.  The fact that two apples are different implies
> something separating them.  This separation I would call Quality.
> Quality does not exist in the apples, it is an expression of what 
> separates
> them (higher, lower, or whatever).  With me so far?

The only difference that exists "prior to our coming on board" is the 
difference between sensibility and otherness which separates the self (as a 
negate) from beingness (the complementary essent of difference).  This 
dichotomy is what makes possible our coming into being.  Everything else (a 
big bang, somebody's hand, a rock, an apple, a tree, or a cow's udder) is a 
construct of value and nothingness.  Essence provides the value; we are the 
nothingness that supplies, actualizes, or experiences the object.

> Now, we tap into that Quality and become "aware" through it of which
> apple to choose.  This would imply that the difference already exists and
> that we become subject to it.  Because we are not all alike, the brain may
> react differently to this impingement of Quality, and we may choose
> different apples.  This still does not mean that Quality does not exist.
> This also does not mean that Quality is relative.  I would propose that it 
> is
> relational.  Things exist relationally whether we see them or not.

You are stating propositions that contradict my ontology, so I assume you 
are formulating your own. That's fine, but I can't comment meaningfully on a 
paradigm that is foreign to me.  All I can say is that if difference is 
primary, Essence is divided, which is inconsistent with the absolute 
Not-other.  If Quality is not relative, then man is not "the measure of all 
things" and "some things are better than others" is an invalid maxim.  Do 
you see the problems you are creating for yourself?

> To think about Quality we have to ignore the objects which it separates.
> We have to ask what is separating the objects.  I do not think that we
> create that separation and that difference between.  The fact that we 
> prefer
> one thing over another means that Quality has some kind of drive to it.  I
> suppose this would be called dynamic quality.  Static quality, if such a
> thing exists, would be the polar sides of what Quality is separating.
>
> So this is an extreme simplification of what is happening because choices
> are ongoing every moment whether we know it or not.  We only pay
> attention to the big ones that actually enter into our simplified 
> intelligence.
> Hopping of a stove is a good example of a choice, or which foot to start
> with on a walk and how far to step.  Or even deciding when to fall asleep
> (I mean exact moment).
>
> Now, I am still trying to figure out how to explain this, and what I 
> present
> above is just a bunch of words.  Let me say, that an awareness of Quality
> (as I see it) is possible.  Such awareness may not have the same impact on
> you as it does on me, but it does describe my relational existence here. 
> I
> do not have to consider the need to actively differentiate, because I am
> guided, most choices are done before I think about them.  Sometime I
> go against what I feel to be the direction of Quality, such is the problem
> with thinking too much.  In such cases I tend to suffer in some way.  Some
> times such a thing is necessary to overcome a bump in Quality.  And now I
> have gone too far.  I am not a determinist by any means.

Let me know when you've got it all figured out, Mark.  Otherwise we'll be 
talking past each other.  It's obvious that you haven't yet grasped my 
conception of reality and are already off in another direction.  Since I 
can't accept your fundamental premises, further discussion on this subject 
would only confuse everbody else and prove unproductive for both of us.

Meanwhile, I wish you success in working out your thesis.  Don't feel 
discouraged if it doesn't come together right away.  (It took me at least 50 
years.)

All the best,
Ham