[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Ham,
I'm sorry if I've confused you about my intent.

I was unable to understand your essence as we were going.  So I thought
I had better try another tack.  But, yes, my ultimate motive here was
not to give you a chance to describe your essence.  There must be a
chance that affording you that opportunity will be better for someone,
somehow.   I though I might come to understand.  I thought I might have
something to offer you.  I thought other people might listen in, etc.

So, since I couldn't understand you, I thought I might try to explain
things from my perspective, that you might be able to bridge the gap on
this side.  And I thought I had described myself fairly well, at least
that was my intention.

we had been talking about the absolute...  if there is such a thing, it
doesn't matter how we come at it.  So I was miffed and frustrated that
when I tried to approach yours, I couldn't, while I seem to be fine
approaching mine.  I though, well, if Ham is trying to describe
'nothing' then, perhaps, that is why I struggle.  Because I think I
start at the beginning: something-is.  if teh name is causing a hang up
well let us call it: aliudspiugfea.

So I start with aliudspiugfea.  I start here because it is the closest
you can get to 'nothing proper': aliudspiugfea.  I had thought, this
should prove to be essence.  But it hasn't worked out that way.  Now,
aliudspiugfea cannot be negated because that would leave nothing proper
in its place, which is impossible, so there is this 'impossible' which
bounds aliudspiugfea, ever just beyond grasp.

I'm not sure where to go from here; so I don't.  instead, I think - a
lot like you (but I might be wrong), and a lot like RMP - 'I'. 
aliudspiugfea is all-but-entirely-UNKNOWN but 'I'....  This 'I' turns
out to be even less knowable!  Logically I can know aliudspiugfea, but
this 'I' is all by faithe.  IF the word faithe is bothersome: dsalkj. 
So, by dsalkj 'I' is maintained throughout all it is subjected to within
aliudspiugfea.  This is my metaphysics, Ham:

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained (throughout all it is subjected to) within
aliudspiugfea.

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained within aliudspiugfea.

is there place within 'essence' for my metaphysics?  Since I cannot seem
to understand 'essence' directly, I thought I would try this.


Reply:

> 
> [Ham] 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.

[Tim]
for your benefit, the novelty of the introspection isn't so much the
ground it covers, but the company I have in covering it.  Regarding the
tools used to get to one's view of reality... well, I'm not about to
throw out feelings a priori.  I have to make real decisions, now, now,
now, now, now, and avoiding what I hate seems to get me past the hang
ups of my views better than a lot of other tools.  Ham, I have given you
my view of reality:

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained within aliudspiugfea.

perhaps it went under the radar before, but there it is.  If I leave
those three UNKNOWN precisely, but use them to my best, I seem to be
able to triangulate in on my CHOICE to the greatest success.


> [Ham]  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?

[Tim]
forget what I've said before about faithe and process and dynamism, and
dsalkj: now look at dsalkj.  Now look at dsalkj, I, and aliudspiugfea:

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained within aliudspiugfea.

does this work?  Can I call this a lkdusfgyu?  can I call this a 'living
thing'?


> [Ham] 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 ...

[Tim]
have I supplied enough?


>[Ham] 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.

[Tim]
Ham, since we are aiming at the absolute - the way I see it - we either
hit it; or we hit 'nothing'.  Since I have not understood your essence,
I am reduced to my feelings, but I cannot help but feel that you are
explicating 'nothing'.  I think that I have started at something, but
from here I don't go very far.  I prefer a metaphysics that states the
problem and walks away without an answer, if it cannot answer.  This
feels good.

both 'nothing' and 'something' are uncreated, the former because it
would be impossible to create it, the later because it would be
impossible for it to not-be that it should be created: where-ever you
might think it's not, well, it's there all the same.  That is, we cannot
hit 'nothing' because we rather hit the false.

anyway, to reiterate, I can't seem to climb up to you, Ham, so I am
wondering if you think I am starting from 'nothing'.
  

> [Ham]  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.

[Tim]
I don't know what to do with this.  I find something-is attractive
because the only other options I see are: 1) nothing-is, or 2)
something-isn't.  So I think it is the only logical one.  Now I don't
know how 'I' arrives on the scene, but, I am accommodated somehow.  So
if
an ontology can be built, I don't see how it can start anywhere but
here.  And, it is not me who decides what that something is, but I am
totally dependent upon it, and I can come close to it as I try.


>[Ham] 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.

[Tim]
Well, you'll have to work with the terms I gave you.  I have given you
teh best I can.  remember, Your terms seem unconventional to me.  I
can't do
without 'impossible', I've replaced re-appropriated, conventional terms
with ones that should not mislead:

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained within aliudspiugfea.

This is the best I have been able to do.  I don't see how another (I)
will
disagree.  The only trouble is what, if anything, we can do with it. 
This is where morality comes in for me.

 
>[Ham] Am I to understand that you no longer wish to discuss Essentialism?

[Tim]
I don't know if WE ever discussed it.  I want to discuss with you,
Ham...  Whether I can get to essentialism I cannot say.  BUt, to be
sure, I never thought that I diverted from the objective.

Thanks again,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free