[MD] a-theism and atheism

[rapsncows at fastmail.fm]

Ham,
follow up,
Tim

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

[Tim]
Fine idea methinks.  Thanks.
 
> [Ham] 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.

[Tim]
something-is is my absolute.  That is my chosen name for it.  I have
posited that, for sure.

There are two things now.  On the one hand there is existence as I know
it now, where what is is highly developed, etc.  On the other hand I can
imagine...  If I try to imagine the limit of something-is as it
approaches nothing...

First, all the adjectives you suggest become too burdensome. permanent,
fixed, omnipresent, progenitive, and all-encompassing; and created, etc.
 I want any adjectives that properly describe my absolute to actually
fall out of the absolute.  if it doesn't fall out of the absolute
necessarily, I don't have any need, nor desire, for it.

So...  when I am contemplating the essential nature of the absolute
(something-is), I come to it by trying to envision 'nothing', which I
cannot do, and I then see this as the limit.  Something-is must be
because the alternative is impossible.
 

> 
> [Ham] The postulate "something is" cannot be denied.

[Tim]
not now it can't, but must it be?  I have postulated that something-is
MUST BE.


> [Ham]  You've as much as said so. If the premise "something is" is untrue, then nothing is, which is 
> empirically false.

[Tim]
but, like we've agreed, I think, empirical knowledge need not recognize
the absolute.

> [Ham]  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.

[Tim]
I am not convinced that one cannot know ones way around a barrier to
knowledge.  But, since everything I know, needs my 'I', I can't get
passed that!  Anyway, it doesn't seem impossible that, despite my I, I
might be able to come to a true, even if limited, comprehension of the
absolute.  It may be possible to come to see the absolute - because of
your I.

Anyway, even if not, something-is is the height that you would hope to
attain.

> [Ham quoting:] "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']

[Tim]
well, given the difficulty of communication I can't write of his
consciousness.  What I will say is that I suspect that matter and
space-time seem wonderful realities that permit me to persist within
something-is, to recognize the results of my decisions, to willfully
intend new decisions - trusting that they will be faithfully
transmitted...  If it is "consciousness' that springs these, fine: I'd a
been cool with ardlklih.


> >
> > [Tim before] By relating I am maintained in something-is. (???)
> 

[Tim]
Ham, that was my sentence from before, with strings of letters you
recognize as words rather than...

> [Ham] 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.

[Tim]
so, 'relating' from the above is my relation to something-is.  Others
only enter via it.  While I trust that others are maintained in
something-is too, and that something-is is faithfully transmitting their
choices to me, it is something-is with which I 'relate'.  'Maintain'
really may even be unnecessary; it is an essential aspect of 'I'.  So
rather: by relating, I am, in something-is.
> 


> [Ham] Tim, the reason we sense and search out Value in our life-experience is
> that it is not indigenous to us.

[Tim]
you assume it is indigenous to essence though.  I am right about that,
right?

I don't presume that something-is is inherently valuable. And I
certainly don't presume it to be the fulfillment of all value!

Something-is sits on this razor edge with nothing, the impossible,
because those sets cannot be, or cannot be FULL, respectively.  The
question that arises here, for me, is: well, I'm not sure how to put it
now that I have to put it into words, but, something like: can this
something-is take a form in which it is considered valuable?

For my part, I'm still not convinced.  That is, I still don't know why
you insist that there is value at all.

> [Ham]  We can only experience it as something greater than ourselves.

[Tim]
Ham, you said a while back, in helping me to understand essentialism,
that - something like - essence can only create an 'I' by negation. 
Sorry if I have flubbed this all up.  Why can we not do likewise, negate
a part of our self, and experience value that way?  This may be
off-topic now.

> [Ham]  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.

[Tim]
I think this is our difference.  This essence is not my something-is.  I
suspect that my something-is is precluded from reaching that height; but
I probably shouldn't say.  It is my suspicion that "there would be
nothing that we didn't already possess" is not the goal, is not
attainable, is like unto the building of a tower to god, like the tower
of babel from the bible.  I think that that FULL set (which you call
essence) is fully within my IMPOSSIBLE, and it is only a trick of your
mind that you think it might be possible.  But these are just suspicions
so perhaps I should shut up.

Not yet!  KNowing the boundary between nothing and something is really
hard.  (so I could be wrong!) but it is a great tool of our imaginations
that we can imagine impossible things (because we don't see the full
ramifications at the time), and this allows us to really push into all
the possible.  LEt me point out a couple things that I think of in these
times.  One, if there were nothing I didn't possess, how boring and
meaningless would that be?  But tehn I guess I would also be full of
meaningfulness too...  You would have to have all contradictions
simultaneously fullfilled.  This seems terrible.  And it seems to be a
nothing, proper.  This leads me to two, this word 'nothing', as I use
it, pops up in all these really comical ways.  I know this isn't how you
intended it, but if you treat nothing as a proper idea, which, by
imagination, and in the realm of imagination, is real, then look back at
, "for there would be nothing that we didn't already possess".  To teh
extent that we treat 'nothing' as real, we produce it as real: "there
would be nothing".  I suspect you will think this a childish
manipulation of your words.  I wish you would consider it.  If I am
being proper I don't allow use of this word 'nothing'.  Tehn, when you
see it pop up, you can suspect that you have overstepped your bounds. 
Of course you could restate your above without the word 'nothing', but
then, what if I wanted to be able to work towards a goal?  How is that
meaningful if I already have possession of the goal if that is what I
come to want?

anyway, I just don't see this essence.  Whereas something-is is really
meager (close to death), your essence seems to presume everything.  And
all those adjectives that it presumes comes through your 'I'!

> 
> [Ham] 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 

[Tim]
I'll try to get myself motivated to read your thesis,
Tim
-- 
  
  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...