[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Heather Perella]

Ham,

     Ham said:  "We are looking at the source from the
outside, trying to construct a reasonable facsimile of
its nature."

     As you might have guessed, I have a problem with
'outside' in this above statement.  I don't understand
how we are outside, thus, negated, thus, separated
totally from Essence when Essence is All.

     Ham said:  "I think you're missing the
metaphysical "function" of nothingness that is my
focus here... 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."

     I don't think we are too far off from using
nothingness in the same way.  For me, when I say
nothingness is that which I don't know, does not
exclude that there are things in that nothingness
(somewhere out there so to speak) that I could know
about.  It is just that I am not aware of the rest of
Essence in its' totality, because I am not Essence in
its' totality.  Nothingness separates me (a Part) from
the rest the Essence (the Whole).  Quietness is the
same as nothingness just put into a different sensible
negational term [though nothingness and quietness are
not things of the senses, yet, when I have to put them
into words it is easier to understand these things we
call nothingness and quietness in this void type of
terminology].
     As to the not-other, it is logical.  It has just
been the meaning I guess that I have been caught-up
on.  How nothingness is negated from Essence since the
beginning is not understood by what you have been
saying?  I have been trying to fill in the gaps by
using the explanation that I have been providing above
when I say: For me....   

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