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
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
