[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, SA --

> Essence negates nothingness, not itself.  No you
> did not say this in your thesis.  I am just trying to
> think things through.  Since Essence is not
> nothingness, then where does nothingness come
> from, or how does it exist?

It's a puzzler, isn't it?  My approach to these paradoxical problems is to
eliminate everything and start afresh with a blank slate -- nothingness
itself.

Nothingness has no being, and therefore does not exist.  It is the ABSENCE
of what is.  Essence is the antithesis of nothingness; it is the TOTALITY of
what is.  So that, metaphysically, Essence can not possess nothingness.
Yet, we are cognizant of empty space and divisions that separate objects,
which means that nothingness (voids) are present in existence.  This makes
being/nothingness a unique opposition in that one of its constituents is
"essentially invalid".  The logic of this is that nothingness is exclusive
to existence: it is the GROUND of existence.  That is to say, without
nothingness there would be no existence.

Here's where intuitive reasoning can rescue us.  If nothingness is the
ground of existence, and appears only in existence, it must be the "cause"
of existence.  It must be that "not" in the not-other of Essence -- in other
words, that which is negated or "denied" by Essence to create existence.
Remember that Essence is Absolute: if it possessed nothingness it would then
be absolutely nothing.  Essence cannot logically be "partly nothing" and
"partly something".  It's either all or nothing.  I say it's ALL.  What do
you say?

> Is this correct? - Nothingness creates Difference
> because Essence is denying or negating itself into
> Difference.  The above question still ponders me even
> if what I have just said here is correct.

Nothingness creates Existence by differentiating the awareness of Essence.
We, as nothings (negates), are this awareness, and existence is the object
of our awareness.  Remember that in order for being to appear, it must be
made aware.  No matter what Pirsig says, Existence is a subject/object
duality.  This is not a principle that can be equivocated by Quality,
pantheism, or Zen Buddhism.  It is an empirical truth, an absolute fact.

[From your latest post]:

> Ham you said in your thesis as follows:  "In a
> "quantitative sense" it could be said that things are
> valued in proportion to the extent that they serve to
> fill the conditional void in being-aware."
>
> In other words could this or you also be saying
> here that where we find a void we fill it with
> something, even if that something is accepted as 'a
> void'?  We hear quiet, but without sound to help us
> identify quiet the identification of quiet, when
> present, will be sought by our desire to fill such a
> seemingly void.  To keep it in the context of where
> this quote of yours is in your thesis, therefore, the
> observer notices an electron.  The velocity and
> position of the electron are voids unless we choose
> one to focus upon and therefore find out either its'
> velocity or position, but always one of them will be
> known and the other a probability.  Yet, the void is
> filled with something by our value in "being-aware".
>
> Does this make sense?

You are improvising, I think unnecessarily, here.  Yes, it "makes sense" to
consider that we are "filling a void" with our image of a "thing".  But the
void is our awareness penetrating Essence to derive its "beingness", to
fragment Essence into a finite thing.   It's the only way the negate can
become aware, that is, possess an object for itself.  The contents of
awareness are these "pieces" of beingness which don't have Essence but only
manifest the "conditional value" of Essence.  It is the thing's VALUE to us
that's essential, because it represents what WE as the negate(s) are NOT.
(Forgive the caps, but I can't type italics for the emphasis I want.  Does
it help?)

I'd prefer not to get into quantum mechanics here, although what you've said
about the indeterminate position and velocity of an electron is apparently
true.  My point in bringing Pirsig's SODV into my thesis is to show how man
loses his sense of value when he tries to push the threshold of knowledge
beyond the finite limitations of organic sensibility.  When we attempt to
understand ultimate truth in terms of quantum equations we run into a
roadblock.  We forget that human knowledge is subjective, and that numbers
and symbols by themselves have no intrinsic value.  Man cannot escape his
finite bounds; he cannot intellectualize his way out of finitude.  That is
another maxim of Essentialism.  Existence is designed so that man is
"innocent" of absolutes that would bias his free choices and deny his
autonomy.  (And that is not a euphemism.)

You're very welcome, SA.  You've forced me to explain some stumbling blocks
in my thesis which is quite beneficial for me.  Incidentally, would you
allow me to put some of this dialog on the Forum Page of my website?  (I
think it might help clarify this ontology for other viewers.  I might edit
it a little and would use only your "SA" byline to identify you as a
respondent.)

Best regards,
Ham