[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Reinier (SA mentioned) --


You've answered my questions with some new questions for me.  So, thanks for
the clarification and I've attached my answers to your statements.


> H: I realize that you believe man is the "creator";
> but would there be man -- or experience -- in the
> absence of a Source?

> R: do you consider the Source to be an external
> Source, or do you consider yourself to be part of it?

Essence can never really be "external" since it is "in all".   Therefore, we
participate in Essence "valuistically" [and I'll explain that later] I
regard the self as a "negate", that is, a negated essent.  The negate serves
as the "agent" of Essence by realizing its value in the actualized world.

Can you answer my question now?

> H: For you, there is no other until the subject
> negates Being from Essence.  Is that correct?

> R: Yes

> H:  If so, do you consider the subject's creation
> of Being a 'double negation', since the subject
> (negate) is already negated from Essence?

> R: The FIRST negation.
> (I may have to restate my earlier statement that
> Essence does not create, however this is a tricky
> part because I cannot apply logic to the part
> where the first negation takes place. Logic doesn't
> work for Essence, only for existence, so here I'm
> still at a loss.)

OK.  I can appreciate the logical problem.  Here's where I suppose one needs
a "leap of faith".  (Remember, we're only hypothesizing here, not
postulating Absolute Truth.)  We have to make the connection between the
immutable Oneness of Essence and the subject/other duality of actualized
existence.  For me (and the neo-platonists) actualized existence lies
"outside of" Essence as the not-other.  Actualizing this not-other is what
we call Creation.  I think you're saying that man (the self) does the
actualizing; while I'm saying that Essence does it.  If I'm correct in this
assumption, then we've got an ontological  disagreement that will have to be
resolved.

> H: Are you saying that what we cannot experience
> (of Essence) is not nothingness?  Or, simply that it
> doesn't account for the negation of being?

> R: If no one can experience it, it does not exist,
> because existence is the result of experience.

> H: Isn't the negation of being the separation or
> "carving out" of being from Essence, and denying
> or negating the rest?

> R: Not sure... could you rephrase this question?

This is the issue that I was trying to resolve with SA.  He believed, as I
think you do, that what we do not experience isn't nothingness but the
Essence of all that remains less "me" (my own Essence).  Thus, "all that
remains" accounts for the universality of knowledge, which is our source of
Essence Value.  I posited an addendum to this by saying that, as negates, we
are each estranged (divided) from our proprietary Essence --that the
negation we effect is to reclaim our own "essence-value" through experience.

I know this is complicated -- possibly even unnecessary; but kindly give it
some consideration.

Meantime, I'm willing to make some concessions for the sake of our accord.
Could you possibly provide a brief explanation of your entire ontology so
that I may compare it with my own Creation hypothesis -- see
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality .

Thanks, again, for your patience and insight.

--Ham




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