[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hi Tim --

> I'm down to keep picking at this if you are.  Of course I understand
> that you might not.
>
> Like I said, I think that I have misled myself into thinking that I had
> been understanding you: essence, absolute, etc.
>
> So, let me kinda' start over, the grand picture:
>
> 1) I have been summoned into this life without my permission ---
> everything thereafter seems to hinge on my ability to be an I.  I don't
> know what this 'I' is.  I don't know where it resides.  But continually,
> and without fail, I am reminded that I should faithfully submit to this
> state of affairs. "I am" is a meaningful statement.  [now, I have been
> wondering, based on recent posts, if I loose some people even here;
> but, Ham, I don't loose you, do I?  When I say, 'Ham', that is a
> meaningful statement, is it not?]

No, you won't lose me, because I acknowledge the 'I' you describe as a 
subjective self.  You will lose the others, however, because they reject 
"subjects and objects", and some even deny they have a "self".
>
> 2) Next, this I, in which I (must) have faith but in which I do (must)
> not have 'know', exists (that is, it is provided some hard protection
> from incidental incursion by another I --- even if that i is a real
> sub-part of I).  I exist; something which is other-than-I exists; there
> is a meaningful (impenetrable) distinction between the two (or more).
> There is a 'reality'.
>
> Now, I don't know what I am supposed to do with anyone who
> won't accept these.  If it is the first...  But if it is the second, I 
> guess
> that means war.  It seems that we share this reality, between (Mark) us.
>
> 3) amongst this get-up there is change.  But I, somehow, remain I.
>
> 4) not only is reality, existence, meaningful, but change too is (seems
> to be) meaningful outside of me.
>
> Now, I realize that one might view change as either internal or external
> to reality, but, at least for now, let us see if we can agree that both
> 'reality' and 'change' are meaningful characteristics: do we?  [I might
> have guessed that you, Ham, would not like change; that you might insist
> that it is a phantom of essence, but isn't that to make a 'thing' of
> essence?  I'm getting ahead of myself here!]
>
> 5) If we have agreed this far, then we must conclude that (every) I am
> (is) responsible for choice.
>
> It is my understanding that everyone has submitted to this, and everyone
> is struggling as he will to choose.  Here, in this forum, we like to
> talk about our manner of choosing.  We believe that we can 'mold' ---
> mold what?  the meaningful (dynamic pattern) 'I' that persists reality
> with change. ...
[SNIP]
> Again: I say: "something-is".  You, Ham, have mentioned the all-is (by
> some dude), and you have chastened me for 'thingyness', but I have
> always maintained that it is noun-verb, or I can switch it to, verb-noun
> if you prefer.  I don't see how you can hate thingyness altogether yet
> like the idea of the absolute or essence.  And even for those who don't
> like the idea of an absolute, process becomes a thing at some point, and
> it must process something.  ANd if process doesn't become a thing, what
> prevents that?  dynamism?  then dynamism becomes a thing.  If everything
> is relative, then 'relative' becomes a real thing (process): it is the
> way to preclude the absolute or objective entirely.

Tim, a metaphysical concept isn't what one "likes" or "hates", but a 
hypothesis that supports one's view of reality.  You are throwing a lot of 
words and feelings at me, which I assume are reflections from some recent 
introspection on your part.  But I'm unable to put them together as a cogent 
thesis or ontology that would represent your worldview.  "Non-verb" and 
"verb-noun" mean nothing to me; but that isn't the problem.  You ask: "If 
process doesn't become a thing, what prevents that?"   How can I answer 
without knowing the context in which "process" and "dynamism" are used?

I thought the purpose of our exchange up 'til now was to allow me to outline 
my philosophy of Essence and get your comments or criticisms in return. 
Apparently you had some other objective.

> So... If you can say one thing, either way --- either this is true
> absolutely, or this is false absolutely, this divide between possible
> and impossible is meaningful.  [Ham, I still don't know very much about
> what you think about my perspective on things.  In act, last Thursday
> when I got this reply from you I started typing up a long response -
> then I decided a break was better.  Anyway, I think that I have put a
> lot of effort into trying to understand you, but I'm not sure if you
> have done the same for me.  I mean, I know you said that you thought the
> conclusion I reached seemed to be proper, so i know you are paying
> attention, but.....  I guess I was just frustrated, and a bit
> disappointed.

Sorry to frustrate you, Tim, but I was unaware that you were expecting me to 
interpret your comments as a particular metaphysical position.  To do this, 
I would need the same kind of outline or 'précis' that I've been trying to 
provide with regard to Essentialism.  Until I see your how your comments fit 
the overall picture, I'm not able to pass judgements on your philosophy, nor 
would it be fair to try to answer random questions like these ...

> Now that that's off my chest, if your absolute essence is right, doesn't
> it have to be possible?  or are you putting it before the
> possible-impossible divide, like phaedrus' quality and the S-O divide?

Of course Absolute Essence has to be "possible" if it is true.  Since it is 
my thesis, it is true for me.  (Whether it is true for you is something 
you'll have to tell me.)  I don't recognize a "possible-impossible" divide; 
it's not a proposition of my philosophy.  The only divide (dichotomy) I have 
posited is Sensibility/Otherness from which all difference derives, 
including the individuated self.  Existence is differentiated; Essence is 
not.  Therefore, the 'reality" your comments allude to is existential 
reality.  Its ultimate source is uncreated Essence.

> If you are telling me that essence produces the possible-impossible
> divide, that is something to think about.  But!  for me, I've said that
> the only thing I can imagine being before that is 'nothing', and I can't
> imagine 'nothing' being, so I imagine an undifferentiated divide
> (boundary) between possible and impossible.  I say 'something-is'
> (noun-verb) to try to capture it.  I think it does pretty well.
> Furthermore, 'something-is' is simpler - and more complex at the same
> time.  I find it a very attractive foundation.  I think that it is
> accessible to everyone, even people who have severe limitations.

Of course 'nothing' is not 'being'.  But, then, Essence is neither nothing 
nor being.  "Before" and "after" have no relevance to the Absoloute Source, 
as it isn't differentiated by time.  You may find "something-is" an 
"attractive foundation," but what kind of logical proposition is that?  How 
do you build an ontology on "something-is"?   You can't.  You must first 
decide what that "something" is and how it functions in creation.

> But we have been putting off talk of morality.  I'll just repeat, that I
> think my foundation is just as attractive if we are looking at it from a
> moral perspective, but we are talking heady things now.

As I said previously, morality is based on value preferences, which is a 
human function.  We can't explore moral judgments until we've established 
precisely what a human being is and the epistemology of human experience.

> From the intellectual side, the congruence between something-is,
> representing a difference between possible and impossible, and I,
> representing a difference between no and yes (totally dependent on
> POSSIBLE), is compelling.  But I don't think that I am being unfair to
> other ideas intellectually.  If you tell me that I have not reached the
> height, fine, but if you tell me my foundation is wrong...  how?
> where'd I go wrong?  But then again, if you tell me that you KNOW you
> are right, and that I am wrong...  you can't even come by you without
> faithe.  Are we at square one? ...

I don't know where you think I've criticized your "foundation'; I simply 
haven't enough information to comprehend it.  Whether you assert "something 
is" or "everything is", I can say "yes"; but those "noun-verbs" themselves 
don't constitute an ontology.  Again, it's impossible to pass judgement on a 
thesis withut knowing what it is.  May I suggest that you write a paragraph 
or two explaining your belief system?  We can then discuss its functional 
elements individually and determine how well it holds together as a workable 
thesis.  That's the only way I know to critique a philosophy.

> Anyway, it is my suspicion that your essence is an embodiment of
> nothing.  I suspect that you are praising the negative image produced by
> the collection of somethings.  Before, I thought we were talking about
> the same thing, but just imagining it different (like, if you can
> imagine a circle, or any shape, amidst nothing, you were zooming in on
> it, while I was blowing it up - either way, we were looking at a circle
> which appeared different due to our manipulation of it.)  Now that I
> think that we are talking about something different, I cannot help but
> think that I am talking about something while you are talking about
> nothing.  I don't mean to be offensive: any way I try to imagine
> representing the cut between possible and impossible I imagine two
> things which are the inverse of each other, so they appear ...  well,
> perhaps you will even like to stop there, 'appear'.  My point is that
> appearance, in itself, is proof enough of something - this is not to say
> that appearance cannot confuse, in fact, it seems that appearance itself
> MUST confuse - but appearance should give faith in reality.  How to look
> at the reality that is the possible-impossible-divide (not that I am
> right) ...  it may be too complex to see it simply, but to faithe it
> simply seems as unavoidable as the seeing (knowledge) is un-apprehendable.
>
> Ham, this is all to say, that no matter how close you are, with essence,
> I don't know how you can write off the simple foundation I have
> presented.

Again, I am not writing off anything, Tim.  Write up your précis as 
succinctly as you can (omitting unconventional terms like "faitheing", 
"possible-impossible", and "thingyness").  I'll be happy to respond with my 
personal analysis of its workable and problematic points.

Am I to understand that you no longer wish to discuss Essentialism?

Thanks, Tim,
Ham