[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[platootje at netscape.net]

Ham and others,

I said earlier:
> 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.

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

Me:
Ofcourse there is Essence. Essence is the space-less, time-less source 
of all.
(and 'essence' is a name, like there are many others that carry 
different feelings, so Essence works pretty good for me)

I said:
> 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.

You ask:
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?

Me:
Tough question, but an important one to ask. Subject-object style 
questions with regards to Essence and negating are hard to handle. Do 
we need an object or a subject when we use a verb?
For me the objects and subjects are a result of negating, not a cause. 
So the question 'what does the negating' is a question I cannot answer. 
Essence holds all possibilities so also the possibility of negation, 
which I'd rather call duality. Duality may be considered as denying 
Essence. This denial off Essence creates a subject, the one denying 
Essence, and an object, Essence being denied. Without the denial of 
Essence both dissapear. Denial also creates self awareness because by 
denieing Essence a subject is created and an other to the subject (an 
existential other where the subject is the existential not-other). 
Still both depend on the denial and still they are both not other to 
Essence because in Essence the denial was never actualized.

I theorize:
> 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.

You somehow agree:
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?

Me:
Your introduction of nothingness here is, in my opinion, unnessecary. 
It doesn't add anything. Something is either red or it's not red. All 
that is red added to all that is not red gives you all. The fact that I 
can not comprehend Essence is because I'm part of the denial, I 
consider my surroundings as an other. I really believe in the 
buddhistic zen approach in this, our attachement to our selves creates 
our ego. There is also a void in zen buddhism, but that's closer to 
Essence then it is to Nothingness.
For me to fully comprehend Essence I would have to give up the concept 
of 'me'.
Nothingness can never be experienced, right? Then in my book, it does 
not exist because the experience is prior to the existence. The only 
thing that is prior to the experience is Essence so that would make 
nothingness part of Essence, which it's not (in both our books).

What would your thesis loose without Nothingness? Is the concept 
necessary for Essentialism?

Kind regards,
Reinier.
___________________________________________________
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com