[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi SA --


I said:
> I still believe existence comes about as a result of
> the primary negation of Essence.  The question is:
> What does Essence negate?
>
> 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.  ...I'd appreciate hearing your
> opinion as to whether this makes sense -- not whether
> you believe it, but is it a logical assertion?

You replied:
> 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.'

In the case of Absolute Essence, the whole is far greater than the sum of
its parts.  Essentialism is not a mechanistic ontology.  The "parts" are
intellectualized constructs generated by the brain from a handful of
specialized sensations.  We are looking at the source from the outside,
trying to construct a reasonable facsimile of its nature.  It's almost as if
we were attempting to determine the nature of the moon by gazing at it from
the backyard.  All we have to go on is the sunlight reflected down to us
from its surface. Time/space experience is no measure of the reality of
Essence.

> 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 ...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.

I think you're missing the metaphysical "function" of nothingness that is my
focus here.  Again you describe the experience of looking and listening for
nothingness as something which does not exist, but not as something that
differentiates.  "Quietness" does not adequately describe the difference
between objects experienced, unless you're detecting that difference on an
oscilloscope or a Geiger counter.

What I had hoped to hear from you was whether it is logical to say that what
is not-other to Essence is both "not-" and "other" (divided) in existence.

Can you comment on that?

--Ham