[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hey, SA --


More thoughts on the elusive Nothingness...

I think that quotation by Reinier might have been inspired by Merrill-Wolf,
whose name crops up here every so often.   For example, compare what Reinier
said with this analysis of Wolf's
logic which I came upon while researching Nothingness:

"Wolff also maintained that anything that can be experienced or thought
exists through contrast with its opposite.  Otherwise it couldn't be
isolated from the totality of all consciousness.  Thus, if A stands for any
such object, state, etc., then the universe of possible experience or
thought is either A or not-A.  But ultimate Reality lies in neither of these
compartments -- and we say it is neither A nor not-A.   "To the pure
thinker, THAT which is neither A nor not-A is Voidness.  But through the
Door of Dhyana IT is found to be substantial Fullness."

I suppose you caught David Morley's sarcastic criticism of my attempt to
define Essence (in Cusan terms) -- "the totality of what is" as the
antithesis of "the absence of what is":

> Ham and cracked eggs eh!
>
> How can essence be 'infinite potentiality' and also the 'totality
> of all that is'? Are you a professional metaphysical comedian?
> The former surely includes all that isn't too?

But if David is wrong in assuming that Nothingness and Essence are
identical, perhaps I am wrong in assuming that Nothingness is what is not.
Perhaps Nothingness is the Essence we can't experience, and Beingness is the
experienced image of our own negated Essence.

Alan Watts and the existentialists Heidegger and Sartre use the term
"essential nothingness", which (if essential infers "necessary") might be a
more logical way of supporting the expression "a nothingness".  By that
paradigm, Essence could incorporate Nothingness in its "coincidental"
Oneness, the negation of which could then be theorized as the primary
division (cause) of self and other.

What do you think?

-- Ham