[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Reinier --


I appreciate that you've taken time out to consider the Nothingness issue,
which apparently has put me into a minority of one.

Let me take your critique one step at a time.

> Two main objections against it remain:
> 1)  You still haven't convinced me how my theory
> based on duality needs a "nothingness". I've pointed
> out that duality can and should be limited to
> existence so leaving out nothingness does not
> do any harm to it.

The theoretical need for Nothingness, as I see it, is to isolate subjective
awareness from Essence (its object) so that it can be a free agent.  This
cannot be a splitting of Essence, because Essence is by defnition absolute
in its Oneness.  Likewise, any hypothesized "attribute" of Essence would
necessarily be integral to it and non-divisible.  Only the antithesis of
Essence (which by YOUR theory AND Cusan logic is primary to absolute
potentiality) qualifies as the actualized "other".

> 2)  There are indications from quantum physics
> that there is a universal interconnection of everything,
> in other words, there are no holes in existence.

I'm not a physicist and am unaware of any evidence for that conclusion.
However, I don't base my philosophy on the scientific theory, whether
macro-science or quantum physics.  The scientific approach is tied to
physical reality and deals exclusively with only three principal
constituents: mass, energy, and velocity.  Since nothing else is accessible
by the scientific method, Science can make no valid assumptions about
non-physical realities, such as Essence, awareness, or transcendence.

> Then there are minor objections:
> I believe there is no a priori particle.
> No smallest building block.
> Again, quantum physics seems to indicate
> that it's the experience [that] plays
> a vital role in the manifestation of matter.
> This leads me to believe there's no fundamental
> difference between a chair that?s experienced or
> a thought that's experienced, or a feeling that's
> experienced, or an emotion that's experienced.
> They are all X's experienced because they are
> separated by experience from their not-X's.
> So fitting in nothingness there seems an
> unnecessary and complex operation which in fact
> would remove the duality because then there
> would not only be an X and a not-X but also
> nothingness that is both other to X and not-X
> (as oppose[d] to Essence).
> Also if there would be nothingness the primary
> Essential division would be between existence and
> nothingness while I think that the primary division
> is the division between I and not-I (or the creation
> of self-awareness).

Leaving quantum physics aside, I understand your reasoning here, except that
I see no difference between a not-X and nothingness.  In other words, the
existential duality is not a division of X from not-X, but a division of
XYZ...ad infinitum from nothingness.  The duality (actualization) occurs at
the *primary* level rather than at the differentiated level.  It pits the
absolute or infinite against the  "zero point" or infinitestimal
perspective.  So, rather than X and not-X being opposed to Essence, I see
them as two sides of the same coin, i.e., Essence and not-Essence.  I would
put the 'law of opposition' right up front at the Source, and dismiss its
application as an epistemological theory of human perception.  (Sorry,
Reinier.)

> As for the creation itself, this may well be a
> deliberate Essential act to find out if man would
> indeed find back its own Essence.  So yes, you
> may call it a game.

The "game plan", eh?   Well, you're not the first to suggest that notion.

> I'm not sure if I've answered all your separate questions,
> I've looked at your thesis on the internet several times but,
> I like parts of it, I disagree with other parts.

That is to be expected.  Why don't you challenge me with your disagreement
on statements that do not involve the nothingness concept?  (I'm still
working on that concept, although I must warn you that the idea of
'being-aware' as the primary dichotomy of existence now has more appeal to
me than it did before we started discussing nothingness.)

> Maybe we can step over our different view point on nothingness and move
> on.

My idea, exactly.  I didn't want to jump to Value(s) before clearing up this
topic; but it looks now as if we'll have to.  Do you care to tell me how you
understand Value in your philosophical scheme?

This will give me an opportunity to critique your concept. ;-)

Essentially yours,
Ham