[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Dear Tim --


> 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...
>
> 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...

All philosophy is a search for what is real, Tim.  The first question to 
address is: What is the essence of reality?  So, for me, the word "Essence" 
seemed an appropriate name for that ineffable source, as opposed to God (a 
being), Quality (a judgment or feeling), or Atman (universal soul).  The 
question of "self" -- What am I? -- can be answered only after the nature of 
Essence is established, since individuality is derived from (secondary to) 
it.

The individual cannot bring itself into existence, is not omniscient, and 
does not possess absolute power.  In fact, it has no direct access to it's 
essential Source.  You and I stand in the shadow of Essence.  Our very being 
is borrowed from the otherness of creation, and our awareness is but a 
fleeting sensibility once removed from the Source.  Our only link to Essence 
is the Value of which we are sensible.  Simply put, the essence of every 
human being is value-sensibiity.  This affords us with a taste of Essence 
and enables us to experience otherness as a self-sufficient, ordered system 
of things and events in process that represent our value-sensibility.  The 
bottom line is: What you and I make of value-sensibility is our 
being-in-the-world.

There, in two paragraphs, is my précis for Essentialism.   All I'm asking 
from you is a similar outline of your philosophy.  Of course there is more 
to Essentialism than can be presented in two paragraphs, as I am sure there 
is also for your worldview.  (If you've not already done so, I suggest that 
you read my online thesis at www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm for a 
detailed exposition.  It should answer your question concerning "where you 
are" in my ontology.)

I'm truly sorry to have confused you with my terminology, Tim.  But, while 
metaphysics is difficult to articuate, it makes no sense to conduct a 
dialogue in gibberish.  When you're ready to hold a meaningful discussion in 
language we can both comprehend, you'll find me more than willing to 
correspond in similar fashion.

Happy Thanksgiving,
Ham

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 3:02 PM, Tim rapsncows at fastmail.fm wrote:

> 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