[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[David M]

Ham

You start with being/nothing as a whole. You then
remove nothing and think you are left with something.
That's wrong that would leave you with being, the whole
of being, infinite everything. But look if anything what
remains transcendent by its absence is Nothing. It is
the absence of Nothing that is generating your world.
So is not the source of your world the withdrawal of
Nothing.

I suggest that you start with being/nothing as a whole.
So far so good. You then have to remove almost all of
this to create a polarity where at oneend is something and
at the other is the vast expanse of infinite Being/Nothing.
To me this world is a free form poem exploring out of Nothing
only a fragment of the possible.

DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?


>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>