[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

SA (Reinier mentioned) --

You tell me you "get it", you express your agreement, even wax poetic on the
concept, and then -- whoa! -- comes a confused rambling of doubts and
questions that forces us back to the starting gate.   (See, this is why
we're not ready to discuss Value.)

> If Reiner does help with his insight, [?] because
> I guess I am caught up on choice.  How does
> Essence negate itself, unless, it always negates
> itself and that is an aspect of itself?  How does
> an initial negate occur?  Because without Essence
> always negating (and I understand potential fits
> into this somewhere), but without always, then
> a choice is in the midst. Essence negates or
> doesn't negate.  As to quality, that which is
> undefined freedom, yet somehow providing
> a design left up to us.  I am sure that fits in here
> somewhere as well.  I do not want to deter too
> far away from the MOQ.

We've covered these bases before, but I'll try to simplify it.  There is no
"beginning", "sometimes", or "stopping" when it comes to Essence.  Whatever
Essence does, it does constantly and always.  (I think you've described it
accurately as "the eternal now".)

Remember my saying that, from our relational viewpoint, Essence is
"negational"?  Creation is the negation of Essence; not an "occurrence", not
a "choice", but the actualized potential of the Absolute Source.  Consider
it a metaphysical principle.  The only way it CAN create is the way it
DOES -- by negating its own essence (sensibility).  The negated sensibility
[negate] is man's proprietary awareness.  It is man who senses Value in a
relational universe and is granted freedom of choice.

I don't recall mentioning Quality in my ontology, and I certainly didn't
describe it as "undefined freedom".  Where did that term come from?  It was
my intention to discuss Value (Quality) in the context of relational (human)
experience -- but only after we had nailed down the ontology of Essence vs.
nothingness.

You say you don't want to stray too far from the MoQ.  I'm the renegade
here, remember?  I never claimed Essentialism to be a replica of, or based
on, Pirsig's theories.  The  philosophy of Essence is an alternative
perspective of reality with an original metaphysical hypothesis drawn from
the ideas of Cusa, Eckhart and the Neo-platonists.  I had assumed that you,
like Reinier, were interested in metaphysics, and open to new concepts.  Now
it appears that you've elected to follow Pirsig and consider me leading you
astray.  If a departure from the MoQ is traumatic for you, then you
shouldn't be exploring my ideas.

Kindly let me know where you stand on philosophy, SA.  My feelings won't be
hurt should you decide to terminate our discussion.  (It's happened before.)

Best regards,
Ham