[MD] a-theism and atheism

[Ham Priday]

Dear Tim --



> First, I think that I was confused about our conversation, so I'm
> sorry...  I was talking about the absolute only, and not a full
> philosophy of human being.  Regarding the absolute, while I have
> been thinking that perhaps we could have something to say about it,
> if we really put our noses to it, I'm not prepared to say anything
> about it yet.  Something-is.  If I never get passed this, I think it is 
> okay.
>
> Of course we can ask, 'what is it?', but knowing is hard, and i don't
> see how I can know anything greater than something-is.  I think that,
> for me, knowledge is most useful if I always leave some room for
> the unknown between my fundament (something-is) and my best
> working model.

Suppose we start with this postulate which seems to be a firm belief of 
yours: Something is.

Now is that "something" permanent, fixed, omnipresent, progenitive, and 
all-encompassing?  Have you any reason to believe it is a "created" entity, 
like the universe?  Or that it is changing, conditional and relational, like 
the processes of existence?  If not, why are you reluctant to consider your 
something "absolute?  Even if you can't "know" it, you can posit the primary 
source as absolute if it meets the above criteria.

> If I can find something about 'something-is' that must be, such that
> I can know it as confidently as I know 'something-is', then that might
> help me in some manner, but it will be internal to 'something-is'.
> Something-is will always be the greatest 'knowable'.  This is what I
> think about the absolute.

The postulate "something is" cannot be denied.  You've as much as said so. 
If the premise "something is" is untrue, then nothing is, which is 
empirically false.  Furthermore, you are not going to "know" this something, 
either by direct experience or as a "working model", since the primary 
source precedes all models by definition. However, you do know what it can 
NOT be.  It cannot be "Quality", for example, because quality, like value, 
necessitates a cognitive agent.  It cannot be "being", because all being is 
finitely defined and subservient to the physical laws of existence.  On the 
other hand, it could be "consciousness", if you believe that conscious 
sensibility is primary to organic (i.e., neuro-sensory) being.  This would 
mean that there is Absolute (non-referential) Consciousness, which defies 
any known epistemology.  But, at least it's a start.

Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist at UCLA, declared his belief in a 
conscious reality as follows:

"I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. 
Space-time, matter and fields never were the findamental denizens of the 
universe, but have always been, from the beginning, among the humbler 
contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.  The world 
of our daily experience ...is a species-specified user interface to a realm 
far more complex, a realm whose essential character is conscious. ..."
        -- [D. Hoffman: 'Visual Intelligence']

Perhaps Hoffman's 'subjectivism' can add some insight to your query here:

> But it is 'I' who thinks.  I don't really know what this 'I' is either,
> Ham.  Somehow it persists.  I think this has something to do with my
> choice to want it to persist, but it seems that I will never be able to
> know all that I am.  Crazy.  But, everything that I know comes through
> I.  So this makes the idea of 'I' as fundamental to anything pertaining
> to me, such as my thoughts, as can be.  Relating 'I' to 'something-is'
> may forever be beyond my ken.
>
> So....  This 'I' relating with 'something-is' is as deep as I can go.  I
> can't say anything about 'relating' either.  But this seems to work ---
> That is: I have the sense of relating to other I's.
>
> By relating I am maintained in something-is. (???)

If that is your question, I would have to say that you are "maintained in" 
and supported by "something is", whether you "relate to others" or not.  If 
"something is", you logically must participate in it, even if your 'I' is a 
negation of it.

> Ham, 'I'ness seems more essential than value-sensing.  value-sensing
> seems only to be one aspect of I-ness.  anyway, I don't see how you
> can eliminate this perspective from the contention of what is essential.

[Ham, previously]:
> All philosophy is a search for what is real, Tim.  The first question to
> address is: What is the essence of reality?

 [Tim]:
> I think even saying 'this is the first question' shows that your I is
> more fundamental than your first question.

[Ham]:
> In fact, it [an 'I'] has no direct access to it's essential Source.

[Tim]:
> This is big.  I don't know how you can say this.
> what intervenes?  How has essence been parted?

Tim, the reason we sense and search out Value in our life-experience is that 
it is not indigenous to us.  We can only experience it as something greater 
than ourselves.  If we were "essential" (that is, one with Essence), there 
would be no need to seek or desire, for there would be nothing that we 
didn't already possess.

Read sections 3 and 5 (Creation and Value) in my thesis, and see if it 
doesn't shed some light on your doubts.
Then get back and let me know what you don't understand.

Happy reading,
Ham