[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Tim --

> 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 thought 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.

But you haven't explained your perspective, Tim.  All you've given me is 
random comments based on self-analysis.  You complain that I haven't taken 
the trouble to understand your philosophy, yet you haven't provided a single 
theory or postulate that I could build a concept on, let alone intelligently 
evaluate.

> 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.

You seem to think I'm.hung up on terms or labels, which is not true.  The 
following, for example, is nothing but your parody of a concept I thought 
might help you understand the self as a 'negate'.

> If the 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.

So now, in place of "thingyness" and "faitheing", you expect me to deal with 
"dsalkj", "aliudspiugfea", and "lkdusfgyu"?  I don't know whether you're 
pulling my leg or taking out your frustration on me, but it isn't working, 
Tim.  All your word-play so far has given me nothing concrete to work on.

I'm disappointed that you want to abort my presentation of Essentialism. 
However, if you really have a metaphysical perspective -- or even a 
proposition that you wish to discuss with me -- I'm all ears.  But you'll 
have to present it in plain English, complete with a conclusion and the 
premises that lead up to it.

Best regards,
Ham