[MD] Is Morality innate in the cosmos?

[Ham Priday]

Hey, SA --


> 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.

Nothingness is the opposite of "somethingness", which (if somethingness is
being) is in contradiction to beingness.  I don't think we need to give it
"canceling" power in an existential context -- (metaphysically, perhaps, as
when it is negated by Essence in denying Itself.)

I think Cusa considered Being and Nothingness an example of contrariety.
Certainly Hegel and Sartre did.  The problem I'm having is reconciling
Essence and Nothingness.  If Essence is pure 'is-ness' there is no
nothingness in it, and Essence cannot negate what it doesn't possess.

> 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?"

By "one long now" I assume you mean the absolute (limitless) present, rather
than the experience of time ceasing that may occur in a meditative exercise.
Remember that in the absolute perspective there are no events or loci
(places), so there can be no finite distinctions.

> 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 don't need to explain.  I understand that Essence is inexperiencable
and, as such, is intellectualized as nothingness.

> 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?

You seem to understand the concept quite well.  A thing cannot exist until
it is made aware.  And, conversely, there can be no awareness without an
object.  To me, that's the purpose of existence -- to separate awareness
(the negate) from its object (essential Otherness).  This allows the
cognizant Self to realize the Value of Essence in a conditional or
relational way.

> 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 distinct from
> other things. ...I would also include 'finite' within
> this same understanding.

Yes.  I agree with this analysis.  It all goes back to Difference, which I'm
now saying is the first creation.  Befgore you came on here, I began a
thread titled "Looking for the Primary Difference".  What I'm saying now is
that Difference IS primary; it is difference that differentiates the many
from the One by actualizing relations.  And the first and fundamental
relation is Awareness vs. Otherness.

I'll have more later.

Regards,
Ham