[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi SA, (Reinier mentioned) --

I see now why you call yourself Spiritual Adirondack.  Guess I'll have to
get used to the poetry ;-).

> Ham said:  "Essence creates Nothingness by
> negating Itself."
>
> Since Essence is sentient, then it would have
> choice, meaning, it could negate or not have something
> negated of itself.  Right?

I think so.  That is, I think this approach resolves the metaphysical
problem that you and Reinier have pointed out.  If you were a 'physicalist'
you might theorize that Essence creates the universe flat out in space/time,
nothingness and all, since it has the potentiality to do so.  I don't know
about you, but I cannot accept this view.  I believe there is a 'cosmic
template' in there somewhere which accounts for the design of the universe,
but I think WE create it as an intellectual construct.  The fact that we all
create it according to the same physical scheme suggests the necessity for
such a template; but I'm at a loss to explain it.

Anyway, since we need nothingness to be separate identities and to divide
the existents (finite objects in space and time) of our experience, I'll
stick with Eckhart's contention that God creates being from nothing.  But
the nothingness I'm positing is not a metaphysical nothing but only an
experiential nothing, since it retains the sensibility or sentience of its
Creator.  To quote myself on this point ...

> Ham said:  "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."

You picked up on the "rudimentary" qualification:

> How do you think or know or come up with this?
> Why rudimentary awareness and what would that mean?
> Would this have to do with what (Reiner and also
> maybe) I was saying maybe in not the same, yet,
> similar way to transfer a sense of meaning using
> terminology to that may not, as I said, come exactly
> in accord with what you are trying to say, but
> similarly, yes, similarly in accord.  [??]

The term "rudimentary" is not significant.  I'm using it in a relative
sense, to distinguish finite (really infinitesimal) cognizance from Absolute
Sensibility.  As for what you and Reinier were saying, or suggesting, I
can't be sure from your circular statement above.  Perhaps you are defining
it here:

> The terminology to convey this meaning pointing in
> the similar direction such as this nothingness is
> connected and is a Part of All because All is All,
> Essence is All.  Thus, at least what I was saying is
> that nothingness cannot be detracted from such an
> all-encompassing presence.  Is this it?

Yes, metaphysically we're all connected; existentially we're separated.  It
is still nothingness that separates us.  (I am unanimous on this.)  But it
is a sentient nothingness in which Difference is predominant.  Its primary
function is to divide identities, one from the other -- subject from object,
me from you, this from that, here from there, now from then.  Nothingness is
what creates and defines physical being in space/time.  So that, instead of
your analogy of "putting all the parts together", by simply removing
nothingness you would theoretically eliminate being and have Essence.

I've yet to hear from Reinier who has said "there is no such thing as the
nothingness you're propagating."  It's not clear whether he literally
rejects nothingness or just my metaphysical conception of it.  In any case,
I intend to start modifying my Creation hypothesis to reflect this new
premise.

Now that we have finally resolved the mystery of 'the differentiating
nothingness', unless I get additional challenges from you two, I propose
that we move on to Value -- that other essential attribute which is
experienced differently by each of us and is our essential connection to the
Source.  (We tried this once before, remember?)  This time, I'll wait for
all the votes to come in.

Again, thanks for your understanding and helpful suggestions.

Essentially,
Ham