[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Hi again, Reinier --


I feared that you might have left us!

You said:
> 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.

If it's an "Essential" possibility, there must be an Essence.  Otherwise,
how do we get this possibility?  What is its source?

> 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.

Leaving nothingness aside, what do you surmise does this negating, and what
is negated?  By negation, do you mean "denial", in the Eckhartian sense?
My current view is that Essence negates Itself -- denies it own
sensibility -- to create proprietary (self-) awareness. This actualizes a
"negate" (a being-deprived self) which is divided from its essence (essent),
experiencing it as its object.  Can you offer a more plausible theory?

> 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 until then
> remain a theoretical opponent of Essence, only to
> disappear completely once we return to the Essence.

I think I agree with this analysis.  But for me a "negation" leaves a void
in what is negated.  The fact that we cannot "fully comprehend" is because
our comprehension is full of holes or voids that I call "nothingness".  It
is this nothingness by which I differentiate all things and events in
space/time.  Also, the fact that my subjectivity as a "comprehender" is
known only to me means that my self-awareness has no empirical existence.
That makes me a negate -- a non-existent awareness.  What do you find wrong
in that concept?

Incidentally, thanks for describing me to SA as a "well-voiced, intelligent
human being," thus confirming my own opinion ;-).

I'm also pleased to see that you've read Karen Carpenter.  It would benefit
some of the others here to understand religious fundamentalism from the
viewpoint of a brilliant ex-nun who has specialized in the history (and
anthropology) of the major world religions.

Essentially yours,
Ham