[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

SA (Peter mentioned) --

> Ham said:  "...by simply removing nothingness you
> would theoretically eliminate being and have Essence."
>
>      Yep!  I get it.  The freedom to do so (that is
> remove nothingness), that choice.  Here I notice the
> undefined slipping through the cracks providing an
> eternity of discussion by us or maybe 14 billion years
> of discussion to show how that black cherry was
> (carved out), but what of Essence before 14 billion
> years of existence - so much here.  This undefined
> quality, that's what I see dynamically slipping into
> static being.

You've got it.  Except that you're injecting "choice" into this ontology,
which I have not implied.  Choices are options open to man, the "agent" of
creation, in a relational universe.  The absolute potentiality of Essence is
not a choice.  One might call it "volition" or "intention", although such
attributes are a humanistic way of understanding Essence.  There is only
One; hence, there is only one "way" to create.  In other words, the means of
actualization and the sensibility of Essence have a single identity.

>      Peter, remember Ham, (maybe Reiner), and I
> talking about all this physical stuff existing and
> being 'carved out' by nothingness.  Nothingness is an
> actual 'thing' in our discussion, is that right Ham?

An actual no-thing, to be precise.

> It comes about by choice, choice made by Essence
> itself negating, thus separating itself using
> nothingness to do so.  With these separations being
> done by choice by Essence using nothingness,
> individuals come about.  This is the stuff of quality.

Again, choice may be the stuff of Quality (a la Pirsig) but not Essence.
(See what I said above.)

>      Ham I don't want to diverge too much, but this is
> how I see it.  As to Peter's statement, I don't know
> if that locks us up from discussing Value.  I am ready
> if you are though, Ham.

Don't you see that Peter's "rephrasing" of my statement craftily changes its
meaning to suit his nihilistic position?   His intent here is nefarious.

Ham said:
> Nothingness is what creates and defines physical being
> in space/time.

Peter responded:
> I'll just rephrase that slightly:
> "Nothing creates or defines physical being".
> At last we can agree! There is no creator.

You may believe that, Peter.  Obviously, I do not.

SA ventured:
> Yeah, if you want I think I'm ready to move onto
> Value.

Let's give Reinier a chance to respond.  Hopefully, his recent posting is
not one of his 'hit-and-run' gambits.  I have made some adjustments in my
thesis (and FAQs sheet) to advance the view that Essence negates itself
(i.e., denies its own sensibility) to create proprietary awareness.  I
anticipate that it will be necessary to rework the entire Creation
hypothesis at a later time, as there are still too many ambiguous assertions
that may be confusing the readers.  My objective here is to aim for
simplicity, and I've got a long way to go.

I'm pleased that you and I, at least, are on the same page metaphysically.

Thanks, SA.

--Ham