[MD] The differentiating nothingness

[Ham Priday]

Good morning, Reinier -- 

Thanks for hanging in here to clear up our remaining differences.

Reinier:
> I realize I've given some confusing replies and I
> realize I hadn't thought this thru.  So I would be
> willing to say that Essence does the primary negation
> but one thing is stopping me.  I think with every
> negation a less perfect (more divided) world is the
> result.  I cannot believe that an Essential
> act would cause a decline in perfection.

Ham:
I don't understand what you mean by "every" negation.  I count only two:
primary and secondary.  In the primary, Essence denies its "sensibility" as
a not-other.  This negation is a constant "attribute" of Essence, a
happening in the "eternal now".  It does not affect its absolute sensibility
but divides it up into infinitesimal "units", each of which is a not-other
(negate).  You might consider the negate as the "atom" of metaphysical
reality, the ultimate differentiation.  Essence remains "perfect" in its
Oneness because this differentiation is not-other, just as subject/object,
positive/negative, being/nothing coincide in Oneness.  There is no form or
specificity in this division.  All forms are appearances experienced only by
the negate in the actualization of existence.

The physical (actualized) world is a "work in progress" that can never be
perfect.  It manifests disease, death, pain, sorrow, cruelty, violence,
earthquakes, plagues, and a host of other undesirable conditions, in
addition to desirable qualities like pleasure, beauty, harmony, peace, love,
coherence, and understanding.  It's non-esthetic attributes include space,
time, relation, numerality, energy, causation, and logic.  Finite existence
is a relatively coherent and self-sustaining system with a wide spectrum of
qualititive and quantitative aspects, all of which are "appearances".  This
allows the negate "free choice" in its selection of values.  Metaphysically,
it affords the Whole of Essence an external, micro-cosmic perspective of its
absolute Value.

Does this help to make sense of the actualized side of the coin?

Reinier continues:
> The only way out would be a deliberate negation performed indeed by
> Essence, which not affect Essence itself but which creates a
> non-perfect existence in which all the secondary negations take place.

Ham:
I think that's precisely what I have postulated above.  (?)

Ham said:
> 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).

Reinier:
> I can agree to that, given my answer above.
>
> You forced me to define it and
> yes I can agree now.
>
> I think that both man (self-awareness) as his
> biological body are parts of Essence. It's the
> self-awareness that chooses the body. But the
> body is a result of biological and even inorganic
> forms of Essence and so it's an other to the
> self-awareness.

Ham:
I accept that in principle.  However, the unit of self-awareness is so close
to infinitesimilitude (i.e., experience of the infinitesimal present) that I
think it equates to virtually nothing.  I'm not sure whether we can
logically call it "essential" nothingness -- after all, it is awareness -- 
but in the existential sense it certainly approximates a nothingness.  It
has no quantifiable existence.

Reinier:
> There's no "nothingness" there.
> By the chain of negations that took place since
> the beginning, man has become alienated from
> Essence, but that certainly doesn't make him a
> "nothingness". It's the distant memory of belonging
> to Essence that causes man to look for Essence.
> Man still is Essence, all he has to do is fully
> remember.

Ham:
I don't know about "fully remembering" but I like the poetic implication of
what you're saying.  Inasmuch as I accept the "alienated" position of man
that you describe, I'll concede that proprietary awareness is a "physical
negate" but not "nothingness" per se.

Does that clear up the roadblock?

Your comments and insight have been quite illuminating for me, Reinier.
Do you suppose there is any way this ontology can be accommodated into the
MoQ?

Have a great day.

Ham