[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Hello Ham, SA and All,

I'm now just going to reply to posts in the order that I read them, 
maybe not the most efficient way, but I look at the speed this 
discussion oges on, and I just can't keep up :-)
BTW thanks Ham for your kind words in an earlier post, I'm glad to be 
back discussing this intruiging topic of which the final verdict has 
yet to be written....

Ham said:
 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.

Me:
I don't think Essence creates as such. I don't believe in Essence as 
'the creator'
I agree that WE create it because WE have the Essential possibility to 
do that.
As for the design and the alikeness of all our experiences, that's for 
another time to discuss.

Ham (to SA):
Anyway, since we need nothingness to be separate identities and to 
divide
the existents (finite objects in space and time) of our experience...

and...

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.

and also....

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.

So my 2 cents:
I disagree with nothingness being the seperator. I say negating is the 
seperator. We create reality or existence by negating, by saying two 
things are NOT equal, A is not-B.
I am not you
All that I experience outside my body is NOT me, is in fact my other.

This negating is the great divider.

Now we can negate Essence and end up with nothingness as a result but 
only as a mind-game. We cannot comprehend fully what Essence is, for 
that we would have to give up our negated existence idea of 'ego', so 
neither can we comprehend fully what nothingness is. But the trick is 
that Essence is within our reach, but nothingness will untill then 
remain a theoretical opponent of Essence, only to dissapear completely 
once we return to the Essence.

Ham said:
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.

I say:
To soon my friend, I'm not yet convinced but will await your response 
to this.

Kind regards,
Reinier.

(I'll just write down my thoughts and press 'Send' to try and catch up, 
so any unclarities are all my fault, I would like to take more time for 
each post but hey....)
___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com