[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     This is a long posting, but hopefully I
simplified it enough to condense it down into one
question at the end.  
     I've read over your recent postings and will make
some comments.

     You said:  "Sartre says that Nothingness is the
contradiction, not the
opposite, of Being.  Nothingness is logically
subsequent to Being. [?!]"

     I would agree that Nothingness is not the
opposite of Being or an opposition of Being.  Yet, a
contradiction I would disagree if by this
contradiction means something that cancels out the
other.  They do not cancel each other out.  I think
they both exist at the same time.  Nothingness needs
to be defined more closely as to not mix it up as
something so attached to Being as to give it a yin and
yang form of transaction.  I will try to later in this
posting, but first the lead up to an answer by
clearing up or commenting upon some other things we
are discussing.

     You also said in a later posting:  "I remain
unsure as to whether Nothingness can be logically
regarded as "essential"', that is incorporated into
the concept of absolute "is-ness".  Although we can
say that in our relational world a void or a vacuum
exists, we cannot say that anything exists *in
absentia*.  If Nothingness doesn't exist in our
relational world, can it exist in Essence?"

     Your right in questioning this.  Nothingness
needs a more precise definition.  I realize in using
the word Nothingness it is more of a tool to put
across a certain experience.  This experience is not
of a 'nothing' versus "is-ness" (or Essence)
occurrence as I mentioned above, not to give a
yin/yang form of transaction of cancellation.  Yet,
yin/yang transaction could be defined numerous ways
the focus of this posting will hopefully lead into a
more precise definition of what Nothingness is and how
does it relate to Essence and Beingness and Awareness.
 So far that is the goal of this posting.  We'll see. 
Let's continue onward...

     You also said referring to what I pointed out as
the 'one long now' as follows:  "My question to you
two is: Is Nothingness logically included in that
perspective?"

     Yes, Nothingness is logically included in the
'one long now' that includes Essence and Beingness and
Awareness.  How is it included?  It is included
because it is Essence, but Essence in the way we sense
Essence.  I will explain more after this...

     You said:  "Therefore, since Essence is all there
is, it can only negate itself."

     Exactly, it must.  Yet, this is exactly where I
was having difficultly understanding, because how can
All separate into Parts.  I say All is not in Parts,
yet, how we experience All puts All into Parts, and if
All is not in Parts, then how can we experience, thus,
have a totally separate experience away from Essence,
since Essence is All that is?  Here is the difficulty.
 This is what I meant by Focus.  The act of Focus
separates something from everything else.  I am
focusing on this word, not other words in this
posting, but this word right here at this very moment.
 How can Focus exist demarcating and pulling a part
out of All that is in a way putting boundaries
(imaginary or real boundaries depending on your
perspective, yet, in the end boundaries they are) on
things.  Yet, if you think about it those boundaries
cannot hold back everything that is.  Those
boundaries, no matter how hard we try, never hold back
everything.  Yet, we can still Focus upon something,
making it distinction from other things.  This Focus,
'making things distinct', and having boundaries I
would also include 'finite' within this same
understanding.  All of these, including finite, are
holding back everything in a way that allows us to
notice Parts of All that is.  So far everything that I
have said is leading up to What is Nothingness and how
does it relate with Essence, Beingness, and Awareness?
 Also, how do we notice parts of All?  Where does
Focus, Infinite, Distinction, Boundaries, the very
acts of 'making things distinct', come from or how can
it exist amidst an Essence that is All with nothing to
really separate its' All into Parts, yet as you say
here as follows: 

     You said:  "Essence is what negates itself...  
Nothingness is the
self excluded or "denied" by Essence in its negation
of Difference.  (That way, we can say Essence denies
Itself.)...  I suggest that because Awareness is
separated from its essent by an infinitestimal divider
(proprietary selfness), the object of its awareness is
perceived as finite, differentiated Beingness, while
proprietary Selfness is actualized as a multiplicity
of selves, each of which "attaches" to a specific
biological being (organism).  Thus, the individual is
born into a multiform experiential world."

     Essence denies itself.  I could go along with
that.  The process of making distinctions has to come
from 'All that is', everything does, including
processes.  Thus, Essence, as you seem to be saying
here, keeps dividing upon itself, ok I can see that,
yet, now to delve into where does nothingness come
from and how can finite exist, even a perceived
finite, amidst an Essence that is infinite?  I'll try
as follows:  

      Essence and Nothingness and Being are not
canceling each other out.  They are just different
aspects of the same thing.  Nothingess is just how we
sense Essence.  Nothingness is a word used to help
bring the understanding of Essence.  Nothingness is a
trigger, so to speak.  It is something, whether in a
real experience or on paper, to help bring somebody
out of the Beingness experience (or Focus experience,
Distinction experience, etc...) into the experience of
the incomprehensible where Essence is.  Yet, by doing
so Nothingness is real, it is here, but it is only
Essence put into the finite or focus form of the
distinct experience of visualization.  As I mentioned
before, Silence or Quietness is another way to bring
Essence into a finite or focus form of the distinct
experience of the auditory or hearing sensibility. 
These trigger words or 'ways to have the experience
happen' (Nothingness, Silence) are real actions, not
just words.  They are part of Essence, but they are
Essence in those sense organs experience by us in
those particular sense organs.  Since our minds are
very visually inclined noted by us being able to
experience dreams (a visual experience), Nothingness
fits well not just with our sense of sight, but with
our minds and hearts, thus, conceptual ways of
understanding the world as well.  Thus, Nothingness or
Emptiness is not just the absent of all that is or
something in particular, Nothingness or Emptiness
(another term used at times) in my understanding using
your thesis of Essence, these are also everything
because of their way of relating incomprehensible,
nondistinctive Essence.  

     How does Nothingness, Beingness, Awareness, and
Essence relate to each other?  I am concluding thus
far that Nothingness is Essence, as explained above. 
Beingness is Focus, the world of Distinctions, senses,
finite, 'making of distinctions', etc...  Awareness is
what notices  these things and Awareness is a very
visual way of describing the very act of Awareness
itself.  To be Aware of either nondistinctions or
distinctions is something that occurs and is here,
thus, must be an Aspect of Essence playing a limited
role of noticing itself having distinctions and
nondistinctions.  Yet, it is with Beingness or Focus,
the act or conceptual role of having boundaries
demarcating Essence into a finite experience, even
though its' infinite crosses those boundaries, yet,
somehow their is enough Focus to demarcate boundaries
to have the appearance of Parts amidst something that
has no Parts.  It is how Beingness, or the negation as
you say, how can that happen?  How is it possible? 
How can Focus exist amidst an Essence that has no
boundaries to Focus upon?  This is where I am having
the difficulty in jumping from:  All to Parts.  I
could sit back and come up with something maybe, but I
have to get going to work.  You two might come up with
something and I'll check it out later.  

Talk to ya later,
SA 


     


     

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com