[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hi David --


> Ham said: I go on to say that because Essence is
> absolutely full or whole in itself, it maintains its
> "wholeness" by denying "nothingness".

I don't recall when or to whom I said this, but it sounds like me :-)

DM:
> I see, so Nothingness is prior to Essence it seems?
> And Essence can only maintain itself by oppositing
> fullness to Nothingness, but how full is it, has it
> eliminated all Nothingness? Is there no room left for any
> movement?  Is this a metaphysical mess you are in?

In answer to your last question -- probably.  In answer to the first and
second, there is no "prior to Essence" and there is no "not all" to its
fullness.  But let's not try to count the chickens before the eggs are
hatched.  Cusa defined Essence as the Not-other which represents the
"coincidence" of all opposition.  Inasmuch as we can't describe the absolute
in attributive terms, that I think is a logically valid proposition.

One pair of "opposites" that we can intellectually recognize is
being/nothing.  Theoretically, Essence encompasses both being and
nothingness in its coincidental Oneness.  But supposing Essence doesn't
"like" nothingness, decides it will have nothing to do with it.  (All please
note: I'm speaking allegorically.)  So, it denies nothingness -- negates it
as a characteristic of itself.
Suddenly Oneness takes the appearance of something else.  It is peceived as
an "other".  But what is it that perceives this other?  Well, what do you
know, it's the very same nothingness that Essence negated.  In the absolute
perspective, nothing changes: Essence is the eternal  fullness of all that
is; the nothingness that it negates never was, nor ever will be, an
essential attribute.  Yet, its negation is all that's needed to create the
awareness of being that we call "existence".

Is the mess clearing ever so slightly?

Hope so.

Ham