[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     Ham said:  "I still believe existence comes about
as a result of the primary negation of Essence.  The
question is: What does Essence negate?  It seems to me
that we have a choice of three options:
1)  It is conceivable that Essence could negate itself
-- that is, its
"identity".
2)  Essence could negate Value, which is its sensible
or esthetic
manifestation to the negate.
3)  Essence could negate Nothingness if it POSSESSED
nothingness (which is
problematic, since Essence is absolute "is-ness")."

     Then Ham said:  "I'm still inclined to go with
#3, because it accounts for the negate that is a
critical part of my hypothesis.  I justify this by
reasoning that Essence does not possess nothingness
BECAUSE it is always negated from Essence.  In other
words, nothingness is, was, and would remain an
"other" to Essence, except that the negation serves to
make it "not-other".  I'd appreciate hearing your
opinion as to whether this makes sense -- not whether
you believe it, but is it a logical assertion?  (I
know you think nothingness is a "renegade" of finitude
-- an excellent analogy, by the way -- but I may be
able to persuade you otherwise.)"

     It is logical.  Hard to understand how
nothingness could be active in the world, yet, not
included with the All of Everything, but logical. 
Logic doesn't include content, at least that's what I
think.  The meaning of what is either chaotic or
logical, now that's where I am having the difficulty
with this Nothingness away from Essence.  #1 and #2
would provide more meaning to the finite world,
because as I stated sometime in a previous posting,
since Essence (in your thesis) is All, then it has to
show up in All, even the negated Parts of All.  How
All fits into Parts?  That might not have to be asked,
because logically Parts would fit into and/or with
All.  Thus, all negations would be connected to
Essence, yet, when we look at all negations we would
just see Parts of Essence.  If we put all the Parts
together we would end up with Essence.  Yet, what are
all the Parts to be put back together?  It would be
easy to say, 'Well, that's everything, put everything
back together and you will notice Essence.'  Could I
differentiate all the Parts, that once put together,
would be Essence?  No, thus, I don't know or see
everything, thus, am a Part, not All, of Essence.  
     

     After typing what I typed above, this is what I
typed below.


     To me, that which stares me blankly in the face,
the aspects that I don't know or see, now that's where
the mind or visual experience is one of Nothingness. 
Those Parts I do not hear is as to an auditory
experience that is one of quiet.  So when I put what I
have knowledge of (which is true knowledge, not True
Knowledge; true for my necessity to cope in this
universe) together with what I don't have knowledge of
and thus, this latter is a view of nothing and a
hearing of quiet, then together these provide me with
an experience of All.  Could I let you know or even
fully experience this All?  No, because the knowledge
I do have is finite as I explained there is knowledge
I do not know about and thus, this knowledge I do not
know about is quiet to me and is undefined and thus
having the appearance of Nothing when it comes to
something here that I could let you know about.  This
is what I see when I look at Nothing and hear quiet.


SA 

     

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