[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Reinier --

Something you said earlier is bothering me.  When I asked "what does the
negating?" you equivocated, saying:

> 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.

If I were to appear before you with a black eye, you might ask me how I got
it.  If I responded by saying, "it's the result of a bruise", would that be
an adequate answer?  No, because the answer you're looking for is "Joe
punched me in the eye."  If subjects and objects are the result of negating,
then they presuppose a cause.  So, I accept the fact that you don't have an
answer, at least for the present.

But what really confuses me is that you then attribute the negation to the
subject of the negation, not Essence itself.

> Duality may be considered as denying Essence.
> This denial of Essence creates a subject, the one
> denying Essence, and an object, Essence being denied.

If the actualization of subject and object comes about as a result of
negation, how can the subject negate?  Unless you're referring to a
"secondary" negation of Essence by the subject (man), there is no subject
prior to negation.  Clearly, the primary negation must be Essence denying
Itself.

Now I happen to believe that the subject does negate Being from Essence; but
I refer to this as a "secondary" negation because the subject is actualized,
along with its object, by the primary negation.  Just to be clear, in my
philosophy there are two negations: primary and secondary.  The
actualization of self-awareness and otherness is a result of the primary
negation (by Essence), while the cognizance of finite beingness (particular
things and events) is a result of the secondary negation by the subject
(negate).

It would appear that you either reject the primary negation entirely or are
not prepared to define it.  This seems to be confirmed by your assertion:

> 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 you read my thesis, you'll see that an important principle of
Essentialism is that man is an autonomous agent.  Even though he
participates in Essence, he must be free to choose values without the bias
or influence of absolute knowledge.  In order to do this, man is
metaphysically detached from Essence (otherness).  He experiences Essence
indirectly and incompletely, as the things and values of a physical world,
but his actual self (proprietary awareness) has no physical being.  Except
for his biological body, which is appropriated from othereness, man is a
nothingness.  That's why I use the term "negate", and why I relate
proprietary awareness to the denial of absolute sensibility (Essence).

I spoke of making some concessions to bring our theories closer together.
This is not one of them.  If you cannot accept the "self" as an autonomous
agent separated from the source but seeking (i.e., valuing) its Essence,
then we have reached an impasse.

Perhaps when you explain your ontology more fully, it will resolve this
problem.  I would suggest that both of us need to define precisely what we
mean by Negation.  Specifically, we need to establish who or what does the
negating, and whether negation creates the thing that is negated or makes a
nothingness of what surrounds it.  (I'm afraid I have been careless in my
own use of this term, which may have added to the confusion.)

As you can see, I'm giving serious thought to your theory.  I won't pass
judgment on it, however, until I see a more complete exposition.

Essentially yours,
Ham