[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[David M]

Ham

What makes potential and actual different?
How does the potential become actual?

DM




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ham Priday" <hampday1 at verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The differentiating nothingness


>
> 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
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>