[MD] Food for Thought

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

> Ham,
> 
>      So, basically what your saying is, for any
> "otherness" to occur, negation is the act of
> separation in which something is now some - thing (the
> '-' separates, thus, is negating some from thing), for
> example.  Thus, negation is the force of separation
> and your whole explaining is to try to explain how
> separation is possible?  If so, how does negation not
> become something 'outside of' the whole process?  What
> I'm learning is the difficulty in having a beginning
> is that a beginning inherently sets-up time barriers. 
> Thus, to use your thesis, how does essence all of a
> sudden negate?  Before negation no beginning of
> universe:  after negation or during negation beginning
> of universe.  Thus, how does negation occur all of a
> sudden?  It would seem essence wouldn't 'know' any
> differently.  It would seem essence just woke up one
> day and decided to negate, yet, negation was never
> with essence.  Negation just seemed to come out of
> nowhere?  Where does negation come from?  Unless,
> negation was always here, negating away and essence
> must therefore, to use your thesis as an example,
> always included negation.
> 
>      I don't know, this is just what spit out of me
> after I read your post.  Any comments?

I had the same questions, SA, only not so well formed or expressed. Where did
nothing and or negation (can't tell the difference) come from? Or is it negations,
like turtles, all the way down? Furthermore, to even know Essence is to posit
something outside of Essence or Essence couldn't be recognized as such by us mere
mortals. When it comes to beginnings, both science and philosophy appear to be
flummoxed. And they don't seem to be sure about endings, either. But, I could be 
wrong. 
 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/