[MD] a-theism and atheism

[118]

Hi Tim,
The way I understand Ham's ontology is that everything that has the
potential of being differentiated already exists in his absolute essence.
 There is really no way of knowing this.  However, if there is a dynamic
component, then we can make a difference through a creative process.  This
of course does not impinge on the notion of absolute essence either.  Either
we pick and choose what is already there, or we create something new.  If we
take the creative stance, this brings responsibility and morality into the
picture.  Not that we create such a thing, but it is more of a guiding
principle which we can tap.

At present I do not see the need to create a Nothingness.  I think such a
concept falls out of our temporary memory of what is going on.  At the
leading edge, our interaction with Quality is free of memory, and therefore
has more possibilities for creativity.  But I haven't given Ham an honest
chance yet.

For me, relationism allows me to get away from objects and view the dynamic
more directly.  Of course this makes an object out of it, but it moves.  It
is more like feeling the wind instead of describing it as the wind.  Memory
seems to tear this up, so one must be wary of that.

This is nothing new of course, the trick is to grab ahold of it instead of
thinking about it.  This would make Quality more of a way of life than some
metaphysical argument.  Of course I am full of dreams that sometimes do not
reflect reality...  This reminds me of some lyrics from the Kings of
Convenience, which are from your neighborhood I think.

"Dreams burn but in ashes are gold"

Cheers,
Mark

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, <rapsncows at fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Mark,
> you got it right; but I wasn't suggesting that the 'already absolute'
> was dynamic, per se.  the point was that there is no reference to say
> either way.  If the absolute desired to remain constant, it would have
> no way to go about doing so, and it would have no way of knowing if it
> were succeeding.  The point is that both those terms are relational,
> like you say, and thus have no meaning to the 'already absolute'.  Thus
> it need not be, and in fact it cannot be, constrained that way.
>
> if the 'already absolute' wants any dynamism (anything at all - beyond
> itself - I think, as I see the 'already absolute' as a pitiful and
> wretched state), it must invite relationship in.
>
> now we're having fun!
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>