[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Mark,
I'm waiting on Ham, but I think I can give some comments anyway,
Tim


[Mark]
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:01:55 -0800, "118" <ununoctiums at gmail.com> said:
> 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.

[Tim]
I think that there is some imprecision in language that Ham would want
to correct here - I don't know if I can do it - but he would say that
this is close.  First, the thing in everything is not a thing but a
negate.  Essence is, and it is immutable.  essence does somehow entail
all potential, thus already absolute.  differentiation is not real, but
phantasmagoric.  How'm I doin' Ham?

> [Mark] There is really no way of knowing this.

[Tim]
Ham might say that, I'm going on a limb, --- something about 'absolute'
not having meaning otherwise.

> [Mark]  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.

[Tim]
I think that Ham would have us conclude that teh appearance of dynamism
is part of the phantasmagoria... and maybe even that our free choices
can either heighten this, our sense of the phantasmagoria, or else,
bring us closer to the unity of being and sensibility that can be had in
essence.  But this is maybe where my grasp of Ham breaks down (though
maybe way earlier too!).
 
> [ Mark] 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.

[Tim]
I think Ham might say something like, to the extent that creativity can
be considered, the responsibility and morality of choice is no less if
the choice is a negational one.

> [Mark]  Not that we create such a thing, but it is more of a guiding
> principle which we can tap.
>

[Tim]
Ham, we put off talk of morality.  I can't even begin to think that I
can start for you here.

> [Mark] 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.

[Tim]
Ham would have us (again, I think) require 'nothingness' in order to
preserve the pristine immutability of the already absolute.  So there
are two different things in the above.  The latter is in line with
popular, common usage (here), while the former seems bass-ackwards to us
(me at least, and at least at first - which is why there was such a
barrier to my understanding of what Ham was saying).

> [Mark]  At the
> leading edge, our interaction with Quality is free of memory,

[Tim]
speaking only for me now:
the interaction with Quality, at the leading edge, may be free of
memory, in the bare sense, but we are not free of memory, and it is Our
interaction, so memory is still intertwined.

> [Mark] and
> therefore
> has more possibilities for creativity.  But I haven't given Ham an honest
> chance yet.

[Tim]
Well, to teh extent that I have grasped Ham, an honest chance would be
worth one's while.  Also, Ham has asked how much the MoQ is a part of
our daily lives...  I would guess that in the moment he is not thinking
I am a negate, difference is nothingness, ...

> 
> [Mark] For me, relationism allows me to get away from objects and view the
> dynamic
> more directly.

[Tim]
I think this is pretty much what Ham's essentialism builds to for him,
though replace 'the dynamic' with 'essence'.

> [Mark]  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.

[Tim]
yes....  I think we all (here) aspire to have our way of life and
metaphysics reinforce each other.

> [Mark]  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.

[Tim]
hehehe... under a rock?  Earth? ... Bergen?  hmmmmmmm...


I have been talking about where Ham is coming from, but let me say just
a bit about where I am coming 'FROM' - hehehe - 

going back through:
it is weird for any of us to contemplate the absolute.  I think Ham
diverges from me at the foundation, but subsequent to this divergence we
seem to see it the same, or pretty much the same, which is kinda neat,
kinda weird, whatever.  I think it is the fact that we can come from
exactly opposite direction, but reach the same (or nearly the same: is
this important?) innerts, that is the most concrete demonstration of the
absolute.  I see the absolute as fully potential, fully open to
possibility, but really meager (wretched, death-like, - I should
probably shut up about it), whereas Ham might see it as glorious, the
pinnacle.  Anyway, there is a lot I might say, but I should probably
shut up about it - at least for now.  But the key point, I think, is
that I see the absolute as being preserved no matter what, whereas I
think Ham has developed his thoughts (particularly his terminology)
while trying to force himself to ensure the preservation of the
immutable absolute.  For my part, I wonder if this restriction is
workable, or if it imposes some error within.  I think that it should be
workable, but that the idea of the absolute as a realization of all
potentials simultaneously, rather than just openness to them, might be
our real cause for contention.  I think this is the cause of our
difference on the nature of dynamism.  Ham sees common reality as a
phantasmagoria; I see it as a representation which has undergone a
minimal of distortion (a fair and moral distortion).  Dynamism for Ham
is negational, we prefer creative, but I suspect that since both are
workable, both are just as right (it is the picture of the absolute as
realized or open that may be wrong: and Mark, perhaps the more prudent,
has suggested that we cannot really know), the point is maybe better had
as choice: setting a boundary between the no and the yes (am I
creatively typing right now, or negationally not exploring the fjords of
Norway, and not, etc. and etc. and ... there is a boundary, set by
choice).

Ham, I hope you'll forgive me if I have butchered you, it has been a an
exercise for me, which seems to have helped me...

Mark, and Ham,
all the best,
Tim


 
> "Dreams burn but in ashes are gold"
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark
> 
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                          or over the web