[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Ham,
I don't know if this will help things or hurt things for us.  I am
disappointed too.  Nothing I've said has been insincere.  I have made
nothing but good faith effort.  So, when you say 'essence', I read
lkrewh, this is because 'essence' seemed to be getting in my way.  but
even when I replace all your strings of letters with strings of my own,
I have no way to connect them to myself.  so I have snipped what I claim
is the ESSENTIAL link from me, and asked you to insert it into your
framework for me, so that I know where I am in your essentialism.  If we
could have succeeded in that, then I could have perhaps gone somewhere
with you.  But since we cannot locate each other...

By dsalkj, 'I' is maintained within aliudspiugfea.

That is where 'I' am, Ham.  IF you can put me in your essentialism... 
how does my dsalkj and aliudspiugfea compare to your strings of letters?
 Anyway, again, if you cant use mine and I can use yours...

I said before that I can only try to suspect where the problem is.  At
first I thought I understood you, but that we were just talking about
the absolute insideout.  Now I think you have killed me metaphysically. 
Metaphysically, I maintain 'I'.  I think this is the place to start.  I
don't see where 'I' fit into essentialism.  saying that I am a negate of
essence seems to be what you offer me.

see below too:

> 
> [Ham] But you haven't explained your perspective, Tim.

[Tim]
I have, and I'll do it all over again if there is a path you can point
to that is better.  I did my best; it is there.  IF it didn't work
perhaps we can both forget what each of us has said... and maybe fresh
eyes will see better some other time.

> [Ham]  All you've given me is 
> random comments based on self-analysis.

[Tim]
They are not random.  And such a statement might have hurt if I didn't
have my firm grasp of myself.  Ham, I don't know what you think you have
given me either.  Is it more than self-analysis?  If it is more than
your understanding of yourself it must provide some contact ...  I have
suggested taht evidence of this contact would be either 'I' would fit
in, or a physics would fall out.

>[Ham] 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.

[Tim]
maybe I though of one more window:  Ham, can you describe for me why you
have not submitted to this thing you talk down of within the Pirsig
camp, the denying of one's self?  How is your 'I' maintained?  What is
your 'I'?  This is a real effort on my part here and I hope there is a
chance for a link here.  Why do you continue to think that there is
really a Ham?

> 
> 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 
> 

[Tim]
again, I am not aborting your presentation.  If you want to present to a
cardboard box I will play cardboard box.  But I've got nothing more out
of it than the box because it is all foreign to me.  This is not, here,
word-play just to occupy time either.  As concrete as if might be for
you, your essentialism has left nothing for me.  How do you get in? 
This is all I'm asking.  If there is no way for an 'I' to get in, I
don't see how you think you have anything.

before, when you said I is a negate of essence, I thought I just had to
make stuff go inside out (and I thought you were not talking in plain
english but I spent a lot of time trying to use your strings of
letters).  How does essence negate itself?  I have asked this before and
you have not answered.  What is that process?  You have said nothingness
negates essence.  You have said there is no other to essence.  How do
these jive?

I have also asked what double-negation means, but you didn't answer
that.  There seems to be something missing!  I can't put it together.

all the best,
sincerely,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

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