[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Reinier (and SA) --

Welcome back, my Dutch friend.  SA may have forgotten, but I've quoted some
of your thoughts on nothingness to him (you might check the archives) and
have told him how much I admired the way you think.

> Sorry for breaking in to this discussion but
> I just couldn't resist it.

No apology necessary.  You don't know how delighted I am to have you back in
the metaphysical discussion.

> While thinking and reading on a lot of subjects
> I was strengthed in my opinion that there is no
> such thing as the nothingness you're propagating.
> I think all is connected, Essence is All, our perception
> being the differentiator, valueing Essense creating
> existence. I see this view confirmed by quantum
> physics.
> But to your specific comment "whether it is logical to
> say that what is not-other to Essence is both "not-"
> and "other" (divided) in existence". I would like to say,
> yes that's logic. The opposite to duality is unity, but
> only from the viewpoint of duality, because from the
> viewpoint of unity there is no opposite. Essence is
> Unity, Existence is duality. Only in existence
> can there be the concept of existence and Essence,
> of unity and duality, of other and not. In Essence that
> differentiation does not exist. It is the source, but it's
> not an external source, and we're not apart from it.

I think SA is saying much the same thing.  It is this thought which best
represents my predicament:

SA said:
> [S]ince 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.

Essence is not an accumulation of parts, so that metaphor won't work.
However, SA is right in noting that if Essence negates or "denies" itself to
create otherness, "it has to show up in All, even the negated Parts of All."
I can't get around that by positing the negation of something which Essence
doesn't have -- namely, nothingness.

So try this one on your thinking caps, gentlemen:
-- Nothingness is nothing -- the absence of Is-ness.
-- Essence is the fullness of Is-ness, therefore has no nothingness.
-- Essence is (for me, anyway) absolute "sensibility".  (I believe in a
sentient absolute.)
-- But Essence is also absolute "potentiality" (according to Cusa); which
means, theoretically at least, it can create an "absence" or void within
itself.  It can "annul" or deny sensibility to itself.

Could this annulment be the self-denial or abnegation of It-self that I'm
looking for to make this hypothesis work?  In other words, is it logical to
say that Essence causes Nothingness to arise by displacing its own
sensibility?  If so, we have a new paradigm for creation: Essence creates
Nothingness by negating Itself.  That gives us Difference from which
relational existence is derived.  And the "negate" or nothingness of this
Difference carries the sensibility of Essence with it as a rudimentary
awareness which lacks the essential identity -- in other words, the
proprietary self.

Would that not resolve both of your reservations about my thesis?

Are we there yet?  (I think I could make this work!)

Thanks for your help, SA; and please don't leave this discussion, Reinier.

Essentially yours,
Ham