[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Reinier and all other metaphysicists --

You and I have a mutual interest in establishing a logical ontology for the
actualization of Essence.  I see much agreement in our overall scheme.
Whether the details can be set into a logical framework remains to be seen,
but it will necessarily involve some ideas which the MoQers will call "a
leap of faith".  So be it.  (I think Dynamic Quality is a leap of faith.)

Here are a few of your assertions that trouble me.

> I don't think Essence creates as such.
> I don't believe in Essence as 'the creator'.

I realize that you believe man is the "creator"; but would there be man -- 
or experience -- in the absence of a Source?  We need a Source to get things
started, whether or not the "universal template" as such is the direct
creation of the Primary Source.  In that sense, Essence is by definition the
Creator.

> 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. ...
> This negating is the great divider.

I do not disagree with that.  I think you are using "negation" more as a
"subtraction" or "adduction" FROM Essence, whereas I have usually described
it as a "relinquishing", "annulment" or "letting go" of Itself BY Essence.
Is it possible to pin this down as a logical proposition?  Perhaps they mean
the same thing, inasmuch as the result is the same.

Part of my reason for believing that Essence "creates" is the influence of
Eckhart who used the term "denial".  He taught that "God [Essence] denies
that He is anything but Himself".  This is my concept of the negation that
actualizes differentiated existence.  I happen to like that analogy.
However, I can understand how your meditative insight might cause you to see
it differently.

> Subject-object style questions with regard to Essence
> and negating are hard to handle. Do we need an object
> or a subject when we use a verb?

Absolutely.  Even intransitive verbs, as in "I eat", presuppose an object.

> 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.

Something has to do the negating.  In the case of man, awareness is the
subject that, when experiencing its object, negates Being.  As a
"not-other", it has the potential to negate.   In the case of Essence (also
not-other), it is negational by its nature.  Therefore Essence doesn't have
to be a 'dualism' or differentiated.  I see Creation as a metaphysical
constant, much like a negative charge in physics.  From the existential
viewpoint, it is an ongoing process.

> Essence holds all possibilities so also the possibility
> of negation, which I'd rather call duality. Duality may
> be considered as denying Essence.

Duality presupposes Difference.  I maintain that Essence is undivided
(non-dualistic) but has the potential to differentiate itself by negation to
actualize existence (or the experience of existence).  But this
actualization is metaphysically insignificant, because it is not-other.
(Again, this is the influence of Cusa's theory of Coincidence, which I still
hope to discuss with Clyde E. Miller, the professor who formulated Cusan
logic.)

> This denial of Essence creates a subject,
> the one denying Essence, and an object,
> Essence being denied. Without the denial of
> Essence both disappear. Denial also creates
> self awareness, because by denying 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.

Hmmmn.  An interesting variation on my theme.  And it would impact on my
Values thesis.  I agree that the denial of Essence creates a subject.  (By
the way, Reinier, by stating that you admit to Essence being the Creator.)
But you also eliminate what I've been calling "otherness", the object of the
negate or subject.  For you, there is no other until the subject negates
Being from Essence.  Is that correct?  If so, do you consider the subject's
creation of Being a double negation, since the subject (negate) is already
negated from Essence?

> Your introduction of nothingness here is,
> in my opinion, unnecessary.  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.

Are you saying that what we cannot experience (of Essence) is not
nothingness?  Or, that it simply doesn't account for the negation of being?
Isn't the negation of being the separation or "carving of it" from Essence,
and denying or negating the rest?  (This was the analogy I used with SA.)
To me, when we negate or deny something, we make it a nothingness just by
ignoring it.  Is nothingness not an element of this concept?  I think it is.

> For me to fully comprehend Essence I would have to give up the concept
> of 'me'.

I think that's probably true.

> 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 lose without Nothingness?
> Is the concept necessary for Essentialism?

Naw, I make up Essentialism as I go :-).  You make a good point, Reinier.
And I'd like to take some time to consider it.

I'll get back to you with my unanimous consensus.

By George, I like the way you think!  I can truly say ...

Essentially yours,
Ham